In this video I tried to explain what word-formation processes are and what tools they use. I'm looking forward to getting feedback from you! :) The voice actor from the opening is ShadyVox. (Check out his work, too!)
I still don't get the difference between inflection and derivation from the examples you used. What's the key difference? It sounded like it was whether it changed the word as opposed to adding onto the word. Then the next side's examples destroys that rule.
Derivational processes are word-formation processes, so you add a derivational affix to an existing word and you get another word with another meaning (helpful + {un} --> unhelpful, the meaning being the opposite of the base). Inflection doesn't do all that, it just adds grammatical information (do + {third-person S} --> does). Hope this helps.
Derivational Morphemes are affixes that changes the grammatical category or Parts of speech when added or attach to an existing word. Let's say for example, the noun "beauty", when you add the Derivational Morpheme "Ful" at the end of the word, it changes into an adjective "beautiful". While inflectional morphemes are group of letters that are added to an existing word, however it does not changes the grammatical category or parts of speech. Let's say for example, the regular noun "carrot", when you add inflectional morphemes "s" at the end of the word, it only indicate the plural form of the noun carrot. (noun remain noun). ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ ❤
It's a tricky case. According to the etymology of the word, the original root is the Old English word "mæs", to which {a-} was added as a prefix. So by the diachronic perspective, you could argue it's three morphs: {a}{maze}{ing}. However, the etymology also states that the modern lexeme "to amaze" is a back-formation of "amazed", which means you could say it's bimorphic that way. Personally, I think that's nonsense. I think the first option is more likely, probably because your lecturer/instructor wants you to realise that through processes of derivation, words like "maze" can become "amazing" since {a} is a derivational prefix (to alight, to arise, to awake, ashamed).
Yeah it was quite a confusion over the class.I thought that amaze-ing was more appropriate because a-maze-ing went out of context and apparently didn't made sense to me but being coming from "to amaze" as you said major lexeme (I'm a beginner, basic linguistics 😂 )Still I'm curious what would be more preferred by linguistics or is /appropriate accepted any way you can say,if you go by the rules?
@@waniyazoha9293 The honest answer is: There are probably as many different opinions as there are linguists. So I'd say there's no one correct view, but different ways to look at it. Some linguists prefer to trace a word back into its absolute past; others prefer to regard those things as roots which cannot be split further within the semantic system of the current language (e.g. "health" obviously contains the morphs {heal} and {th}, but semantically, health is not a noun version of "to heal", but an entirely different concept nowadays. So you could argue that you couldn't split it any further today because it's modern meaning is the result of other processes). The process of morphological fossilation, which prefers language structures that aren't productive any more, doesn't make it all easier. So yeah... depends on what makes more sense to you. ;)
Which types of word formation are the following words Automation=automate =? Humid=humidifier= ? Typographical error=typo=? Love seat =loveseat=? Please answer
@@Phloneme thank you so much. I had mentioned it as derivation. it means I was right 😊 Thanks again this lesson was really helpful for me. keep it up 👍
