17

In English, one counterexample is the very common '-ed’ (often /d/) ending: ‘filled’ is 1 syllable, and the morphemes are ‘fill’ + ‘-ed’ (/d/).


10

The most important fact about "morpheme" is that it is a claim about the state of a language as it exists at a specific time; it is a concept of synchronic analysis, not diachronic analysis (etymology). There have been numerous attempts to "define the morpheme", i.e. give a succinct statement allowing you to know that this is a morpheme and that is not. One ...


9

As I understand your interest, you don't need the relationship to be English (monomorphemic) to Other (polymorphemic), it works just as well if you have English being the polymorphemic example and Other being the monomorphemic example. North Saami [gabba] is "all-white reindeer" – there are other words for various coloring, sexes and ages of reindeer, also ...


8

One easy source for this is words that used to be polymorphemic, but fossilized by the time they reached English. For example, "desire", "depend", "destroy", "descend", and "delete" are irreducible in English: there are no verbs *sire, *pend, *stroy, *scend, and *lete. However, in Latin, de- was a productive derivational prefix meaning "down, from, away", ...


8

An example that springs to mind: English "love" vs. Danish "kærlighed", which is actually tri-morphemic, consisting of "kær" (dear), "-lig" (derivational morpheme creating adjectives, thus "kærlig" = "loving") and "-hed" (derivational morpheme creating nouns from adjectives, like English "-ness").


7

In short, assuming invisible stuff is always problematic from a theoretical point of view, because you can never really prove it's there, and even worse, you can never really prove it's not there - because it's invisible. This is scientifically seen very undesirable and therefore often rejected - a hypothesis should always be possible to both be verified ...


6

Morphemes are sequences of phonemes that have meaning. A full stop or period doesn’t correspond to any sequence of phonemes; so it’s not a representation of a morpheme. It is however related to meaning, in a way. This is because meaning in language doesn’t exist just at the level of morphemes. Punctuation is more or less related to linguistic features at ...


6

This really comes down to how you define derivation versus inflection. The line between these two categories tends to be incredibly fuzzy and difficult to determine. For instance, if your definition is that derivation changes the category of a word, and inflection doesn't, then how do you handle participles (inflected forms of verbs that act like adjectives)?...


6

A lot of modern linguists use the concept of "free morpheme," which refers to morphemes that can occur as words on their own, as opposed to "bound morphemes," which can only occur in words that have at least one other morpheme. For example "happy" is a free morpheme in English, as it can occur as a word with no other morphemes involved, while "un-" is a ...


5

No, there are a small class of morphemes called interfixes which are needed for phonological reasons, but are not considered to carry any semantic content. One example is the i in humaniform.


5

I think one of the first major studies was Bybee (1985). Bybee, J.L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. She proposed the hierarchy Justin Olbranz refers to: verb-valence-voice-aspect-tense-mood-modality-person-number Another prominent study that argues along the same line is ...


4

Assuming the goal of writing a speech recognition program that does what the human mind does, a large non-linguistic front end must be dealt with first (a front end that is decidedly not part of linguistics), namely, how does the human auditory system work, starting at the ear? What exactly hits the brain coming from the primary auditory cortex, or later? If ...


4

You are right that historically, those words are made up from separate units. Morpheme could be used in a historical sense; but it is usually used synchronically. In present day English, compute does not break down into separate units - we cannot use pute on its own, and related words such as impute and repute do not share any discernable element of meaning....


4

It is perfectly possible to have three morphemes in one syllable. Consider the word sixths which is comprised of the morphemes /sɪks/, /θ/, and /s/. So we can easily prove that many syllables exist that contain more than one morpheme.


4

Most often it is called an interrogative {particle/prefix/suffix}. There's no intrinsic reason for using the 25-cent word "interrogative" rather than "question", but "interrogative" is a fancy-register word.


3

I presume you are talking about Complex vs Compound words. A complex word consists of a stem and an affix which the affix does not have any meanings alone. A compound word on the other hand has an affix which has a meaning standing alone. Poly-morphemic, as the name suggests, is a word which has either a suffix or prefix. and yes all the complex words ...


3

I think it is safe to say that if the language remain alive long enough, it'd be a matter of time until a character is fitted to a spoken word. Even if it didn't originally start with one (i.e., European or certain Japanese loanwords in Taiwanese), or if the original had been lost. This seems to be typically achieved by: Choosing a character with a similar ...


3

Traditionally, a morpheme is defined as the minimal meaningful unit of language. Under this assumption, every morpheme is meaningful by defnition. However, this is not always that simple. The definition works well for most of both free and bound morphemes - definitely, free morphemes such as dog, run, red are meaningful, affxies like -ize (verbalisation), -...


3

Well it depends on how you define "morpheme". Usually, it's defined as a sign, i.e. a form-meaning correspondence. In this case, the answer is "yes" by definition (and the -i- in humaniform is not a morpheme but sandhi)


3

The lingu- part may well be analyzed as a bound root. It depends somewhat on the inclination of the analyst, but for many linguists the presence of the suffix -ist in linguist, where -ist is clearly carrying out its usual function of indicating a person specializing in some field of expertise, is more than enough evidence to show that the word linguist is ...


3

We can prove existentially that the shortest morpheme is a single consonant, Examples from Levantine Arabic: -ʃ "verbal negation"; -t "1sg perfective". In Gurage, single phonological features are morphemes.


2

In Spanish, the word "era" (was) can take no syllables, for example: Adorarte para mi era obsesión The part "mi era obsesión", when transcribed in IPA, would become /mi̯e.ɾao̯b.se.sjon/, wherein the "era" /e.ɾa/ doesn't increase the syllable-count.


2

It is by definition meaningless (contains a false presupposition). A morpheme is an abstraction ranging over a particular set of surface strings having certain properties of form and meaning. An allomorph is one of those concrete contextually determined realizations of a morpheme. Assume a morpheme A which has the realizations {b,c,d,e}. If /A/ is realised ...


2

Since -ly can be affixed to nouns (gentlemanly, friendly, ghostly, spritely) and adjectives (unlikely, quickly, heavily, lightly), but not to verbs, then it isn't much use as a diagnostic of word class. It also doesn't doesn't combine with "house" or "yellow", so in case you were looking for an argument than "run" is a verb, the fact that you don't get *...


2

Certainly. Here is one of many LanguageLog posts on the topic, showing two signs which use respectively the Japanese kana の and the bopomofo symbol ㄟ, in both cases to represent a Taiwanese possessive particle [e].


2

Not to refute tendencies in morpheme ordering, but for a different take on your question, this paper discusses how ordering can be compositionally driven by scope, based on data from a very agglutinating polysynthetic language Adyghe (Northwest Caucasian). Adyghe affixes are often described in templatic terms, but the authors show it's not universally true ...


2

I think "excited" is definitely an adjective in the first sentence, and most likely an adjective in both sentences. It looks like some people have argued that it must be a verb in the second because of the phrase starting with by, but I think they're wrong. My viewpoint would be that it is technically indeterminate in the second sentence. "Excited" passes ...


2

The first answer I drafted was similar to what boiko ended up writing, but I abandoned it on realizing what you've confirmed by your comment: you're not asking about the linguistic status of the symbol "." but about what that symbol represents. Another way of asking this question might be, "How do we know when a sentence ends?" To my way of thinking, there ...


2

There won't be evidence that speech is perceived linguistically, since that is not a sufficiently precise claim that it could be tested experimentally. Since it is self-evident that people do perceive the linguistic units words and utterances (in one understanding of what perception is), no experiment has been conducted (as far as I know) to prove that this ...


2

A pronoun is an interesting animal, isn't it! Content? It certainly makes one uneasy as regards one of the tests of functional words: like a noun, it seems to supply content and can serve as a head of a phrase. In fact, it can do most things a noun can do. One intuitive resolution to that idea that it serves its own content, though, might be to compare it ...


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