MOR101 - The Analysis of Words
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.พ. 2012
- How can we analyze words into their component parts? What are the basic building blocks of words? These and other questions are taken up in this short clip. On the basis of a simple example from Present-Day English and an additional analysis using Latin, the fundamental principles of morphological analysis are demonstrated. The clip is used in all classes on the Virtual Linguistics Campus that deal with the basic concepts in morphology.
Great explanation. Thank you very much!
this was very well explained, thank you so much!
Great explanation sir. Very well understood.
Classifying "if" as invariable seems a little iffy to me
Mybrainhasproblems Perhaps it is an acronym or too idiomatic.
Same here: "No buts or ifs" :) Or, being a programmer: "I have two ifs in my function" (two "if" instructions).
@@wezzuh2482 In what way is it an "entirely different word"? It's spelled the same, it's pronounced the same, it has the same meaning, just a different function in a sentence.
The variations in inscription never stop surprising/bugging me... for "kisses," I'd call the "e" a Schwa sound or a glottal stop between the s's, but never [I](xsampa)...
chinese characters could divide into smaller meaningful parts equivalent to morphemes in english and even categorize into bound M and free M if you have a close look at it
i just didn't get why {/re:g\} and {
e:k\} are both derived from {
e:g\} and not {
e:k\}?
Is not if a subordinate conjunction? But is a coordinate conjunction yes, but if not.
What are the allomorphs of king? It was unclear
It's Boardwalk Empire's Eddie!
But i m very much confused .
If this is morph then what is morpheme .please would like to clear my doubt?
th-cam.com/video/EFlXMYNZ2Hk/w-d-xo.html
Thank u very much
why about is invariable? It is actually variable -- whereabouts
Sue Yieu Perhaps he means those words that you can not do anymore with them.. regardless of how they were formed. For instance, myself (can not change) ... Or he means words that can not change without the meaning changing completely. For instance, you can not change to..the, or, an, and, etc.
01:52 What about "No buts or ifs." ?
07:19 WUT?! In the example just preceding this, they were supposed to mean the PLURAL of NOUNS! It's a completely different thing than the "-s/-z/-iz" suffix for verbs (which indeed indicates the present tense 3rd person singular).
morphology isnt pronoun, prepositions, nouns verbs...etc?
Morphological analysis done in phonetic terms for the sake of illiterate languages is only a hindrance to literate languages, upon explaining the phonemes you grouped them together under something that could have been stated as -s rather than having no clear-cut way to express the morpheme.
Grouping them as allomorphs of that particular morpheme would have sufficed.
It can be used not only for illiterate languages. Oftentimes you _have_ to use it for literate languages as well, to account for different spelling quirks (which English, for example, is full of) :q