9

It is not arbitrary, but it is very theory-dependent. One popular criterion for affix-hood is that affixes tend to affix to a particular word-class, thus if you treat "an" as an affix, you would expect that it only attaches to nouns (for example); but in fact it attaches to anything that can be on the left edge of an NP ("an old apple; an enormously ...


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

The deletion of certain <e o> and all <ъ> in Bulgarian is an effect of Havlík's law, and the forms /bantsik::bantsigi/ and /izverk::izvergi/ are demonstrative of Bulgarian's word-final devoicing; all Bulgarian obstruents lose voicing word-finally and the underlying forms are actually |bantsig::bantsigi| and |izverg::izvergi| Other than that, the ...


5

You've already checked out wikipedia right? "Compound (linguistics)" Have you googled it on Google Scholar at all? Noun compounds: This is common in Germanic languages. For instance, Norwegian "jernbanestasjonsmesterbolig" (jernbane stasjon mester bolig). Not a word you'll find in a dictionary but easily made when needed. The only thing that limits length ...


5

It's generally assumed that you can't stick material of arbitrary length and near-abitrary content into the middle of a word. As mentioned in Yellow Sky's comment, we can say, in addition to "an apple", "a yellow apple", "a lovely, delicious yellow apple", and so on. "Of" is not analyzed as a head-marked possessive suffix for a various reasons. There are ...


5

It is not correct to say “that the Latin word 'signum' evolved into 'sign', which in turn evolved into 'signify'”. The English words “sign” and “signify” are both borrowed from Old French, which had them from Latin. English does not allow the cluster /gn/ in word-final position; that is why the /g/ is lost in “sign” but retained in “signify”. It is about ...


4

Common knowledge of writing in a society can and does have an effect on the language structure, and it's been noted: There's this Israeli linguist (I've forgotten his name) who says so-called Modern Hebrew isn't really a Semitic language... he argues in one of his books how Chinese writing has had a profound effect in the language, by altering the way new ...


3

Words are the minimal forms that speakers memorize. (There might be exceptions to that general principle.) There are several peculiarities of words not shared by other expressions, but so far as I know, there is no good discovery procedure for words -- that is, there is no set of observable facts about an expression that give a definite answer about whether ...


3

There is no derivation or inflection. It is a conversion or also called zero derivation. A verb becomes a noun without affixation. Sometimes, the nominalisation is based on the bare form (e.g change), the past form (e.g chosen) or the imperfective form (e.g reading). So, there are many ways to transform a verb into a noun, depending on whether the referent ...


3

I found one paper on the Internet which presents a syllabification algorithm for Lao: Syllabification of Lao Script for Line Breaking I don't find it fully describes what it purports to though and it seems to cover syllable structures I'm so far unaware of in Lao.


3

I have found this one, the icu_tokenizer. The icu_tokenizer uses the same Unicode Text Segmentation algorithm as the standard tokenizer, but adds better support for some Asian languages by using a dictionary-based approach to identify words in Thai, Lao, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, and using custom rules to break Myanmar and Khmer text into syllables. ...


3

Plural formation in Bulgarian depends on whether the noun is masculine, feminine or neuter. On top of that, it also depends if the noun is monosyllabic or polysyllabic. Masculine nouns Monosyllabic: in most cases, use ~ove at the end of the word (e.g. stol - stolove - chair). Nevertheless, some masculine monosyllabic nouns have their own plural form and do ...


2

Nominal compounds are an inherited feature in Indo-European. Classical (i.e. post-Vedic) Sanskrit has lots of very long compounds rivalling anything in German.


2

1.Any polysynthetic language would have such a feature having within any of its word-sentences a 'verbal' particle. This is also one of the traits characteristical for French (with no distinction between parts of speech used for word formation, but with occasional differentiation between grammatical forms of the components), because this language may be ...


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

The first stem is ἁλι- derives from the word ἁλς meaning "sea" or generally the water close to the shore. Then you have πτοίᾱ which means "terror, fright, fear".


2

You have actually answered your question. According to the examples given, possessive is formed with the following pattern: 3rd person Singular: s + root + be 2nd person Plural: s + root + lu Plus, voiced b/d/g in the 1st syllable of the root becomes voiceless p/t/k. You must be confused with unability to tell whether or not the vowel matters here. The ...


2

"Correct" formulation of rules is relative to some context, for example in the context of a specific theory like Distributed Morphology, or Two Level Morphology. If you are just attempting to describe a fact pattern, a plain English statement would suffice, and in fact is superior to a "formalization", since using a set of symbols the way you did suggests ...


2

I think there is a bug in your rule, as you write it, any word can form a plural adding an i, even when the word ends in a vowel. My corrected version of the rule is ə → i / _# ∅ → i / C _ # using a capital C as a metacharacter for any consonant. BTW, the notation is known as SPE style rules or SPE type rules and goes back to Xerox Finite State Tools (...


2

You could refer to this as compositional analysis: approaching the meaning as transparently composed of the sub-units — the sum of its parts. The fallacious aspect is that due to semantic drift, borrowing, loss of productivity, and so on, many words are not the sum of their parts, and certainly not of the original meanings of their parts. But as long as the ...


2

This is a common issue in Austronesian linguistics where the notion of precategorial (=functionally unspecified) roots is often employed to explain the fact that roots don't have a POS category until they're employed in an utterance, and then the same root can be used in many different POS categories. This may match the situation you describe, where the root ...


2

Yes, some linguists consider this possible. Here are some such concepts/authors: "roots": Pesetsky, David. 1995.Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades (CurrentStudies in Linguistics 27). Cambridge: The MIT Press. "listemes": Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring Sense Volume I. Online:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263905.001.0001. ...


2

Your hypothesis is true, partially. Tamil employs agglutinative grammar. Suffixes may be used to mark noun class, number, case, verb tense and other grammatical categories. Wikipedia has a great example of agglutination in Tamil. The only place where I would differ from your hypothesis is that all words by themselves would belong to some 'category' as you ...


1

In the Wikipedia article on Aymara they (i.e., the affix -wa and some similar other affixes) are called phrase-final suffixes with the remark that some authors call them sentence-final suffixes.


1

There are, to modern understandings, no universal sequences of sounds with one meaning. If there are correspondences, they are either because the languages are related (the words are cognate), because one language took the word from another language (one uses a loan word), or sheer coïncidence. There are thousands of languages each with tens of thousands of ...


1

Saying it linguistically, you are looking for a tool that does morphological analysis for Esperanto. There is a great variety of such tools around and I remember that some of them were also trained and tested for Esperanto, but alas, I don't have the details (how the tool was named and whether it is available under a free licence) ready A quick search for "...


1

It does not provide evidence but it certainly narrows thing down. -ly attaches to nouns and adjectives. It tends to turn nouns into adjectives coward > cowardly, gentleman > gentlemanly and adjectives into adverbs quick > quickly. But there are exceptions such as like > likely - here it is hard to determine whether like is a verb, noun or adjective but '...


1

Besides the somewhat nonesense glosses (are you really going to stick a verb as a suffix onto a noun :P), what you marked now for is case; it's possibly a possessive, could also call it genitive. Your possessive construction is basically now noun-POSS copula. This firmly falls into the category of inflection. Unrelated to the question, I suggest you look at ...


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