sorry to be so off topic but does anybody know of a tool to log back into an instagram account? I was dumb lost the login password. I would appreciate any tips you can offer me!
Thank you for posting this summary. My wife and I were struggling to understand this concept for a class based on the instructor's lesson and this video was perfect! Thank you!
Thank you so much......College Anthro class has been talking about this for a week and all three of our textbooks were making things even more complicated. Your very simple breakdown was clear and right to the point, saved for exams!!! Thank you again!
Thank you so much Mr.NativLang .... Such an amazing Video!! U see .. i have linguistics exam tomorrow. And your videos helped me thanks again Wish me good luck.
Good example for a zero morpheme would be the genitive plural suffix in Russian for words that end in a vowel. The lack of any ending signifies plurality and genitive.
Wow, thank you so much for this video! I find it very helpful. One question on allomorphy: if "dog" has one morpheme and "dogs" has 2, then what about "man" and "men"? is this a case of allomorphy? what kind of inflection is this, regarding the fact that we do not have a suffix for plural? Thanks.
Yeah, you're welcome! Since the basic test for different morphemes (and other -emes) looks for a difference in meaning, we can separate the morpheme "man" from the morpheme "men". When sounds inside of a word mutate to produce different grammatical forms (instead of adding a prefix/suffix/infix), the change goes by the name "apophony". You might find allomorphs of "men", though. US speakers with the pin/pen (min/men?) merger might be a source of allomorphs.
***** Thanks! I'm still confused, I was actually thinking of stem homosemy in this case (man/men, mouse/mice). Or rather suppletion (as a colleague of mine tol me)?
Ary Bu Suppletion might not work in the man/men example for historical reasons. I think of the past tense form of GO as suppletive ("goes", "going", "gone"... but... "went" !?!). GO and WENT have separate etymologies - English took forms from one word ("wenden") and shoved them into another word's ("gon") grammatical paradigm. However, man/men did not take its forms from another lexical item. Consider the history of English and Germanic. Initially, Germanic mann- took a regular plural ending -iz: *mann-iz. That little "i" influenced the pronunciation of the root "a" (assimilation, more specifically, Germanic "Umlaut"). For comparison, these are the German words for man/men: Mann, Männer (roughly pronounced Menner). Unlike German, English lost the plural noun ending on "men". That loss obscured the etymology of "men", giving the impression that the only factor is a vowel switch. English now has internal inflection where Germanic once had a suffix morpheme + assimilation in the root morpheme. Now we have three analyses: 1 morpheme analysis: "men" (unbreakable, and means something different than "man") "mice" (unbreakable, and means something different than "mouse") 2 morpheme analysis, using Germanic ROOT + UMLAUT: "man" + UMLAUT = "men" "mouse" + UMLAUT = "mice" Historical analysis, using suffix > assimilation > apocope: mann + iz > menn + iz > men When it comes to stem homosemy, "man" and "men" may belong to the same lexeme. But basic definitions of allomorph do not allow for changes in meaning, so "man" and "men" don't work like allomorphs of the same morpheme would. I hope this makes things a bit clearer (well, as clear as Umlaut can be... sheesh!).
Thanks a lot! It helped a lot! I understand your point with Umlaut, as I am a native speaker of German, but I haven't thought of "man vs. men" like that, so thanks again!
1:17 Before he said "hats" I thought the concept of allomorph applied to both the "-s" of "dogs" and the "-ren" of "children". Could you say it actually applies or are they two separate morphemes with the same meaning?
I've seen it said that ablaut (like foot / feet) is also an allomorph of the plural morpheme. And that Latin declensions (e.g. plural dative endings -īs and -ibus) are allomorphs. But it would be nice if there were another word for when allomorphs are just phonologically conditioned (e.g. dogs / hats for -s, sneezed / picked / waited for -ed) vs actually being completely different in origin (like dog/dogs but also foot/feet and child/children).
Hi, thanks for the video. It is really helping :) but I wanna ask you: what is the different between morph and morpheme? an introduction of linguistics by george yule mention that morphs as the actual forms used to realize morphemes, and Im confuse now. please explain it. thank you (again) ^^
George Yule seems to say that morphemes are single abstract units (an underlying concept), while morphs are the actual things you speak (the various ways a morpheme gets pronounced). This is very much in line with the traditional approach to morphology. When there are multiple morphs for a single morpheme (multiple ways to pronounce it), that's when Yule calls them "allomorphs" - Greek for "other forms". Otherwise a "morpheme" just has a "morph" - a single way to pronounce it. Let's map Yule's difference between "morpheme" and "morph"/"allomorphs" to my video: In this video, the concept (the morpheme) "dog" has the real-life pronunciation (the morph) [dɑːg]. Since there are no other morphs for that morpheme (no other ways to pronounce it), it has no "allo" (other) "morphs" (forms).
Could an example of a null morpheme be the Icelandic word "fiskur", where the accusative form is "fisk"; thus the lack of a ending marks the case, while the "-ur" ending marks the nominative?
+Officialhelpkenet I think that analysis fits the paradigm. There's historical support behind that accusative morpheme eroding even while the good people of Iceland still differentiate the accusative grammatically!
What if instead of 'to the person' you'd write 'totheperson'? Would you call English agglutinative then? Do we label languages analytic or synthetic based on spelling? Why? Why should spelling play a role?
I feel like someone just smacked me in the forehead with a grammar textbook and somehow, the information stuck. I can’t imagine a more enjoyable form of assault 😂♥️
German weak past participles are sometimes analyzed this way: root sag- 'say' + circumfix ge-_-t = ge-sag-t 'said'. Classical Tibetan has the past tense b-(verb)-s. Hope these help!
I m study colleg of Art department of English language I liked your explanation because the language understandable sory if my words not clear because I speak Arabic and my language in English weak thanks again
