10

These have been referred to as "lexicalised diminutives" in the literature. The terms "fossilised/frozen diminutive" also occur in other works. This paper by Bagasheva-Koleva is specifically about the phenomenon you're describing in Slavic languages. This dissertation by Katramadou uses the same term to refer to words like Greek κορίτσι (...


8

The root is Latin iaciō (throw, cast), whose supine is iactum. Because of Latin ablaut (vowel change), prefixes like sub-, ob-, pro- trigger a vowel change to *-iectum.


8

There is no derivation in the example you gave. A derivation, in Linguistics, is when a morpheme is added to another morpheme to produce a new meaning. The case you are talking about can be analysed as a case of polysemy. The morphemes Serpent and Snake are polysemic and share synonym semes at the same time. This polysemy is due in your case to a semantic ...


7

As I wrote in a comment, this is one of the functions of the Biblical Hebrew Dt (hitpael) stem, but the two reference grammars I had a look at do not agree on terminology: Waltke and O'Connor (An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §26.2f): The estimative-declarative reflexive is the counterpart to the Piel's use to esteem someone as in a state or to ...


6

For your English example drivers The lemma is driver The stem is also driver The root is driv The whole thing is better explained in a language with more inflections, where things become interesting. Take the Latin verb laudare "to praise" The lemma is (depending on convention) either laudare or laudo "I praise" There are three stems: The present stem ...


6

-er a derivational suffix because it changes the word class to which the entire expression belongs. That is what defines derivational affixes. bake is a verb, but bak-er is a noun. (I assume the stem bak because the final letter e is not pronounced.) Productivity is not a sufficient criterion for the distinction of inflection and derivation. English ...


6

Would be good to know if this is just because of the fact that English is messy, or there is some other reason. Yes and yes. Yes, because English is messy. The -tion examples are of course all Romance, although there are a few native English words with -tion and other Romance suffixes. Yes, even without the mess (messiness?) there are different types of ...


5

The idea is that there were two homophonic IE roots: *h₁ers- "tail" and *h₁ers- "to flow". Nobody is claiming that the two are connected.


5

Snake and serpent mean exactly the same thing. Is that really true? Of course they both denote the same class of animals, but that doesn't mean they mean exactly the same thing. They have slightly different connotations, as well as different word usage patterns. Let's start with the latter, because it's simpler. First, there's a very slight difference in ...


5

A lot of confusion here... Let's try to clear it up: Forms like facta, scripta are neuter plural forms of the perfect passive participle. The meaning of the perfect passive participle is "having been (verb)ed", so factus, -a, -um means "having been done"; factum as a neuter used nominally means "thing having been done, thing done", and facta is the plural ...


5

In this sense, a "derived" word is derived from something else within the same language, or a direct ancestor of that language. For example, English "miniature" is borrowed from Italian, but "miniaturization" is derived from that (by adding pieces onto the end) within English itself.


4

In Esperanto there are some words of this kind, e.g., malina "male" composed of mal- "negation, opposite of" and -ina "feminine" More examples can be found in this answer: https://esperanto.stackexchange.com/a/407/7


4

I'm assuming you're talking about derivational morphology: adding prefixes and suffixes to words to change their part of speech. The answer is: because it gives you more words! Take the word "dependency" for example. This is a noun derived from the adjective "dependent", which is derived from the verb "depend". So learning the one word "depend" and its ...


4

As usual in linguistics, a lot depends on your theory of language. Not everyone has gerunds in their theory (actually most modern syntacticians don't). There are some researchers who understand gerunds differently. There are linguists who are agnostic about the inflectional/derivational opposition; others have a continuum with inflection and derivation ...


4

To expand on snailboat's comment above, you might want to consult Laurie Bauer’s ‘English Word Formation’ (Cambridge UP 1983) for some background here. Quote (p. 87): Blocking is the name given by Aronoff (1976: 43) to the phenomenon of the non-occurrence of a complex form because of the existence of another form. The form which causes the blocking may ...


4

Vietnamese has no affixation at all, though it does have syntax. New words can (in principle) be formed out of thin air, or borrowed from other languages: so word-formation is possible in Vietnamese, and many people equate morphology with "word-formation" (I don't: I use "morphology" only to refer to grammatical word formation). There is also reduplication, ...


4

“Boycotted” has no derivational affixes, so it belongs to zero derivation aka conversion. The affix -ed is an inflectional affix, so you cannot generally say “boycotted” is an example of zero affixation, it does have an affix. It all depends on what you are talking about. If it goes only about derivation mechanisms, then “boycotted” is an example of a zero-...


3

According to Etymonline, the English word goes back to a Proto-Indo-European root: Old English togædere "so as to be present in one place, in a group, in an accumulated mass," from to (see to) + gædere "together" (adv.), apparently a variant of the adverb geador "together," from Proto-Germanic *gaduri- "in a body," from PIE *ghedh- "to unite, join, fit" ...


3

Snake and serpent mean exactly the same thing. But they're different words when they're treated as derivations. That derivation is a misnomer has already been pointed out, so let's ignore that. The second sentence still sounds weird to me. It seems to imply hat serpent and snake would be the same word if their meaning was identical in every context. But ...


3

I am not convinced that either one of these answers in correct. Most Indo-European languages have suffixes that make verbs into participles (i.e. adjectives), like English go > going, Latin amo > amans, Greek legō > legōn. All grammars describe these as inflectional elements. They are not listed separately in dictionaries. I have the feeling that the ...


3

I would say "unscathed" is an orphaned participle and a relic.


3

I've never seen this kind of vowel alternation analyzed as a "simulfix" like that. I would say that it would be preferable to use either of the following analyses: the different phonological forms of the words are simply stored separately in their whole forms: (/əˈɹɪθmətɪk/ and /æɹɪθˈmɛtɪk/). This is redundant (due to the common consonants between ...


2

The original formulation of the 'aggluttinative type' applied to both derivation and inflection. The key element is monosemantic nature of the morphemes involved (but there are also many other criteria). It seems to me that the criteria are best illustrated with functional rather than derivational morphemes. Which is why most of the examples given are ...


2

I don't think you've said the correct distinguishing factors between derivational and inflectional affixes. The primary factor I think is that derivational affixes often change the part of speech of a lexical item, and inflectional affixes don't. What this means is that the concept of the lexical item changes substantially. There is a huge difference ...


2

The -ing ending of the English gerund is inflectional, since suffixing it does not change the part of speech, and this is generally taken as distinguishing English inflection from derivation. Adding a derivational suffix does change the part of speech, but adding -ing to a verb to get a gerund leaves you with the same part of speech, since a gerund is a ...


2

The Wikipedia “formula” is indeed highly problematic in so far as it assumes that derivation and inflection are effected solely by suffixation, which is manifestly not true in many languages. For example, in Arabic yatakātabūna “they write to each other” the root is k-t-b, the first /ta/ is a derivational morpheme, the prefixed /ya/ and the suffixed /ūna/ ...


2

I'm aware of a huge project conducted by Borer (2005a,b; 2013), a major part of it is dealing with word polysemy. However, her project is not purely morphological per se, since you requested theories that deal with polysemy, I believe, from a syntactic point of view, that even some types of polysemy (especially systematic) are dealt with in the syntax (...


2

As it has been pointed out, it’s interesting that this works although the words don’t seem to be related between (some of) the languages. At least I cannot come up with a common root for engl. “gather” and German “sammeln”. The German and Dutch versions are obviously related. What surprises me though, is that French “ensemble” and German “zusammen” do seem ...


2

I recently found some literature on this function in Wolof referred to as the "pretendive" (though I'm not sure how standard a term that is): Torrence, Harold. 2013. The Clause Structure of Wolof: Insights Into the Left Periphery (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tamba, Khady. 2014. Clausal nominalization in Wolof. PhD ...


2

It's worth noting that there are a number of well known patterns. They're not perfect, but they usually work. There's likely 50 common patterns and another 150 that are less common.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible