18

Etymology was the term used for both concepts up to the early 20th century. Then de Saussure postulated the incompatibility of diachrony and synchrony and nothing was ever the same again. Etymology is a study of the history of words' form and/or meaning, and history implies diachrony. Thus, the word lord comes from Old English hlafweard "one who guards the ...


8

The connecting vowel in Ancient Greek compounds depends on the declension of the first noun: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0007%3Apart%3D3%3Achapter%3D24 If the first noun is first declension, the connecting vowel was originally -ā- : agor-ā-nomos 'market clerk', nik-ē-phoros 'bringing victory' (-ē- is the Ionic for -...


8

Starting with your last request that the answer be based on morphology, this is, in fact, one of the problems of compounding, because it's not entirely a morphological phenomenon. Compound gradience Compounding is gradient, ranging from lexical to phrasal to clausal compounds. Here are some examples: (1) [[dark-]room] :: lexical (...


7

Some words in Welsh use a singulative/collective distinction instead of the singular/plural distinction used e.g. in English. This means exactly what you've shown: the collective term for '(a collective of) trees' is the root, and you add the singulative suffix to get 'a tree'. This is sort of analogous to 'a head of cattle' in English.


6

We can't know exactly which quality led so many languages to independently develop or borrow the metaphor — etymological dictionaries rarely speculate on the "why" — but here are my thoughts. There are at least three qualities of "head" that have a possible metaphor with "chapter". Head = (most) important. So natural that examples are hardly needed. Head = ...


5

The primary reason is because there were many Germanic tribes with which the other nations came into contact with directly. This may actually be because of the position in Central Europe - i.e. the contact happened on all sides so on each side the peoples devise their own name instead of adopting a loanword from their neighbours from which they heard about ...


5

There is no such thing as a "correctly-formed neologism". Neologisms are, by definition, new, and therefore not provided for in The Rules. So they're by definition also "incorrect". Of course, The Rules can change, and that's what happens when a neologism survives. The Rules come to accept it (or at least they ignore it). As to "knowlet", there is a ...


5

Here is Quran word for word – every word is written separately, translated, explained grammatically, and recited audio by a professional reciter. If you click a word, you are redirected to a more detailed explanation of the word.


4

I am not sure about the oldest word, but the OED has early references for: pintle (Old English) pillicok from about 1328 onwards prick from about 1558 onwards pillo(c)k from 1568 onwards cock from 1618 onwards Also this from Urquhart’s famous translation of Rabelais from 1653: “My pusher, dresser, pouting stick, my horny pipe, my pretty pillicock, ...


4

Do arbitrary coinages happen in language? Yes, but they appear to be rare, especially if we also remove onomatopoeias and sound symbolism from consideration (which OP has not done). FWIW, https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=%22arbitrary+coinage%22 lists 6 instances of "arbitrary coinage" for English; two (jillion, zillion) are clearly analogical, which ...


4

This is known as compounding. I might add that compounds are not usually made up of full-inflected words with case and number, they are generally based on the stems that get inflection. Hence pratyakṣa in that compound does not have a case marker, as self-standing words of Sanskrit do.


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

Yes. One such word is Russian word вынуть "to take out". Here the вы- is prefix, -ну- is suffix and -ть is ending. The old form of this word was вынять which had the root -ня-, but later the root was re-analyzed as suffix by analogy with other words (сунуть, дунуть).


4

I do not think this is a correctly formed neologism. The suffix -let forms diminutives from nouns. Or can you mention any verb+let formations? The other question is whether there is any need for such a word. What is actually wrong with "fact"?


4

Both words come from the root זכר, but are in different conjugations (binyanim). לִזְכּוֹר or זָכַר is in the kal (pa'al) conjugation, and לְהִזָּכֵר or נִזְכָּר is in the nif'al conjugation. Etymologically, זָכַר is a transitive verb meaning "to remember," and this meaning goes as far back as Biblical Hebrew. נִזְכָּר, on the other hand, means "to be ...


4

Yes, Sumerian scribes did sometimes write words entirely or partly phonetically using syllable signs. This could occur for several reasons: As Draconis already noted, grammatical prefixes and suffixes (which Sumerian used a lot, especially with verbs) were always written phonetically, since that was really the only way they could be written. (Admittedly, ...


3

I believe that the vowel used to link the two words depends on the first one. For example, claustrophobia uses an -o- because it comes from the Latin "claustrum", same with electromagnetism, from Latin "electrum". In the case of misogyny, the Greek word involved is "misos", so an -o- is used, but since the root for agoraphobia is "agora", the -a- is ...


3

The problem starts not with the noun phrase "a lot of ...", but with the adverbial phrase "a lot [of the time]" (meaning 'often'). It is unusual for an adverbial phrase to begin with a determiner (article), so the learner assumes that 'a lot' is one word ('alot'), since the temporal cue 'of the time' is often elided.


3

Because the stem of the Latin word it is formed from is genti- (nominative gens, genitive gentis). So its combining form in Latin would be genti-. The geno- form appears to have been formed by analogy with many other Latin and Greek compounds where the elements are joined by -o-; but not obviously from other -cide words, which are nearly all in -icide: ...


3

A /t/ suffix makes a noun feminine in many Afro-Asiatic languages. However, in many of these languages (including Arabic), it's gotten lenited over time, and is now pronounced as [h] or silent: زَوْجَة /zawɟat/ [zawɟah] "wife". When a suffix is added, the pronunciation is still [t]: زَوْجَتيِ /zawɟatiː/ [zawɟatiː] "my wife"—the lenition only happens word-...


3

There are over 7,000 answers to the question, at present. You can cut the question up into parts -- what are the grammatical prerequisites, and what are the social factors, i.e. how do you sell others on your new invention. English seems to be open to all sorts of neologisms, just check out Urban Dictionary. We can filter out semantic manipulations of ...


3

I think you've just found an error here. I don't think they actually checked all of the possible permutations of the morphemes, so they missed that de-nation-ize-ation-al was also valid.


2

It's not strange. As for Polish, one could say "ktoś" (kto-ś - who-some), but there's frequent use of "jeden" (one) and "człowiek" (man) in similar contexts. I think it's just a general grammaticalization tendency.


2

As usual with terminology, what the term confix means depends on your theory of morphology. Some linguists used it in the sense of what we now call "circumfix." However, Igor Mel'cuk uses it in the sense of "an affix which neither divides the root not it is divided." In his theory of morphology, there are four types: confix, circumfix, infix, and transfix, ...


2

I don't know another language which has singulatives like Welsh. But it's well to remember that Welsh, like English and the Western Romance languages, has lost all its case inflection except on pronouns. The reason I bring this up is that in Russian and other Slavonic languages many nouns have a suffix except in the genitive plural (eg рука (ruka) 'hand'; ...


2

The answer is definitely yes, although really new coinages are rare beasts. The example that comes to my mind, blurb, is already more than a century old.


2

Can I just string a couple letters together, slap on a meaning and call it a word? Or is their a process it has to go through to be considered a word? For all practical intents and purposes, yes you can — if the amount of people who'll be considering it a "word" is limited to just one (that is, you). If you make a word out of existing morphemes, that just ...


2

As I'm sure you know, there are many ways to create neologisms. (Here are a few I summarized in a student paper as a bright-eyed, bushy-tailed undergrad.) It would be fair to speculate that borrowings using Latin roots are far outnumbered by some of the other means active today. The number of people with direct access to Latin has certainly declined over ...


2

Maybe there is a single term for this specific combination of operations, but this seems like multiple operations: learned borrowing + x, where x is the usual process by which x-coloured was substituted with x. A word or other linguistic form borrowed from a classical language into a modern language. See the Wiktionary category Learnedly borrowed terms ...


2

To some extent, yes! Sumerian did use some of its characters phonetically to spell out inflections. For example, dumu-tur-bi-ne-da son-small-DEM-PL-COMIT "with those small sons" would be written with the logograms DUMU and TUR, followed by the phonetic characters bi, ne, and da. Sure, the DA sign could also be a logogram for the side of an object or a type ...


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