http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=tag%3aMorphemesSearch results for 'tag:Morphemes' matching tag 'Morphemes'en-USXMOD (Build: 3614.32638)http://www.englishforums.com/English/Morphemes/lpdph/post.htm#994651Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:04:37 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:994651mansikka1989Thanks for your explanation Mister Micawber, now I'm much wiser. And thanks Avangi, I've been reading the converstations but only now I joined, this seems to be a great place. I like to work with morphemes but my teacher didn't spend too much time explaning them so I thought I'd share the problem here :)http://www.englishforums.com/English/Morphemes/lpdph/post.htm#993691Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:46:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:993691avangiHi, mansikka. I notice this is your first post. Welcome to English Forums, and thank you for joining us. I'm glad MrM responded to your question. It's not a topic we often see on the Forums. Best wishes, - A.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Morphemes/lpdph/post.htm#993639Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:20:10 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:993639mister micawberI have for example a word 'writer' where the end -er is a bound derivational suffix. How about a word 'tiger', do I separate the -er again?-- No; it is not an affix. O.E. tigras (pl.), also in part from O.Fr. tigre (c.1150), both from L. tigris "tiger," from Gk. tigris. Same question with e.g. 'incomplete' where in- is a bound derivational prefix, is it so in 'intuitive' too?-- 1640s, from M.L. intuitivus , from intuitus , pp. of intueri "look at, consider," from in- "at, on" + tueri "to look at, watch over". So it depends on your teacher. The word came as a single piece from Latin, though in Latin the in- is a prefix. What I'm trying to figure out is that am I supposed to separate the affixes wherever I can see them or only when...http://www.englishforums.com/English/Morphemes/lpdph/post.htmFri, 20 Nov 2009 06:24:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:993555mansikka1989Hi! I have some questions about morphemes. I have for example a word 'writer' where the end -er is a bound derivational suffix. How about a word 'tiger', do I separate the -er again? Same question with e.g. 'incomplete' where in- is a bound derivational prefix, is it so in 'intuitive' too? What I'm trying to figure out is that am I supposed to separate the affixes wherever I can see them or only when they carry a certain meaning. Thanks!http://www.englishforums.com/English/Morpheme/lbjwr/post.htm#927733Sun, 04 Oct 2009 11:07:54 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:927733mister micawberJust one, I think, niki. 'worn' is one morpheme; 'wear' is another morpheme. This is a different situation than in the case of 'played', where 'play' is one morpheme and '-ed' is another morpheme.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Morpheme/lbjwr/post.htmSat, 03 Oct 2009 12:48:52 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:926381niki2003mkcan someone help me by telling how many morphemes the word 'worn' has it got??thank you in forwardhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/Morphemes/klxhk/post.htm#893449Wed, 09 Sep 2009 07:44:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:893449mister micawberI'm sorry, but I do not understand what you are looking for. Could you give us more information or some example?http://www.englishforums.com/English/Morphemes/klxhk/post.htmWed, 09 Sep 2009 07:23:26 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:893428anonymousireland languages about morphemshttp://www.englishforums.com/English/English/jhqcd/post.htm#790776Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:10:13 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:790776alpheccastarsIt is a free morpheme. You can read about this HERE .http://www.englishforums.com/English/DivideBoundMorpheme/jgxpd/post.htm#785578Fri, 19 Jun 2009 05:29:59 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:785578mister micawberuni - form trans - plant gener - ative Wisconsin-- This is a proper name of unknown origin, so its morpheme is coextensive with the word.http://www.englishforums.com/English/DivideBoundMorpheme/jgxpd/post.htmFri, 19 Jun 2009 03:24:57 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:785471anonymousmorpheme of wisconsin,uniform,trasplant,generative?http://www.englishforums.com/English/WichWord/jbnlp/post.htm#760629Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:12:26 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:760629patrick lockerbyI agree with you AlpheccaStars. I offered 'isomorphs', meaning 'same shape' as applicable to both the 'shape' or orthography of text, and the 'shape' of speech morphemes. Your answer is more applicable to conventional grammars.http://www.englishforums.com/English/CanMyBeCalledAPronoun/5/dgrnk/Post.htm#606011Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:05:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:606011califjimit is still a noun, no matter what grammatical case it is in. I can't agree. There are numerous examples where the addition of a morpheme changes the grammatical category of a word. -tion changes a verb to a noun ( evict, eviction ); -ness changes an adjective to a noun ( happy, happiness ); and so on; there are many more examples like these. The ending 's is no different. It's a morpheme that changes a noun to a determiner (or more loosely, 'adjective'). The base form George is still a noun within the word George's , just as the base form happy is still an adjective in the word happiness . But the category changes just as much in the one as in the other by the addition of the morpheme. The same thing happens...http://www.englishforums.com/English/Morphology/hdkvg/post.htm#602761Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:58:52 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:602761alpheccastarsIs this what you mean? Decriminalised: de (bound morpheme ) criminal (free morpheme ) ize (derivational morpheme ) d (inflectional morpheme )http://www.englishforums.com/English/Morphology/hdkvg/post.htmTue, 02 Dec 2008 15:37:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:602350anonymousI'm having a little trouble breaking these words down into their morphemes and identifying whether they are derivational or inflectional, and the class changes - I'm very confused! Decriminalised Detainee Housebreaking Illegality Imprisonment Murderesses Punishable Racketeer Unlawfully Villainous If anyone could help, that would be great.http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheAnalysisAnalyticalLanguages/bkdzc/post.htm#599100Sat, 29 Nov 2008 20:35:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:599100forbesI am not sure your German example is a good one. The indirect object can be expressed in English without a preposition: Give the man a medal. Give me it etc. More generally, I do not think it is the case at all that languages that use prepositions rather than case endings are more readily universally understood. It is, as you half suggest, a question of what you are used to. There are some languages that make do with far fewer prepositions than English and they not make use of case endings. Anyway, the point I am trying to get at is that when the function of a word in an utterance is not indicated either by a preposition or some bound morpheme, the meaning can often only be determined by context or you simply have to know.http://www.englishforums.com/English/DoBelieveLatinBasedWordsFormal/3/vmnqv/Post.htm#575822Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:03:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:575822anonymousIt's true.  A-S words are usually one-syllable, with lots of vowel digraphs making them hard to spell for youngsters.  The A-Ss were generally illiterate farmers, and their workaday words reflected their life -- words like laugh, farm, truck, jack, should, think, meat, enough, road, stew, bread, said, sheep, field, plow, etc.    A-S words make up about 15-20% of the English dictionary, yet they are used 65% of the time when we communicate. Words of Latin origin are indeed more sophisticated, and account for 55 % of our language.  These words contain a root (with its stable meaning) and prefix(es) and suffix.  Compare the words fear (A-S) and consternation (L).  If we only taught our students  morphemes (the meaning-bearing parts of...http://www.englishforums.com/English/IntransitiveTransitiveExtensive-Intensive/cclpc/post.htm#571882Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:32:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:571882anonymousHi, The basic morphological form of a verb is the form that hasn´t taken any ends, usually the infinitive form. E.g.(to) walk to this basic form you can add different endings, such as -s for third person singular, -ed for past time, -ing for progressive form. walk/s/ walk/ed/ walk/ing/ Morpheme is the smallest meaningbearing part of a word it can be divided into. Eg. Unforgivable becomes un/for/give/able Hope this helps Sofihttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AspirationAfterS/grpxh/post.htm#511049Thu, 08 May 2008 02:01:29 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:511049califjimIf you said ""mistune" (tune -> mistune), would you aspirate the T? I would, because it's part of a different part (morpheme?) I would probably aspirate that t at least a little, but not for the reason you give (I think). I think it's the stress pattern, tune being relatively stressed, that pushes me toward aspirating that t . Nevertheless, an unaspirated t in that position (after an s ) sounds perfectly fine as well. You may be trying to fine tune your pronunciation below the noise level, if you know what I mean. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AspirationAfterS/grpxh/post.htm#510554Tue, 06 May 2008 21:23:02 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:510554kooyeenNo aspiration in any of these cases; dis c lose, mis t reat, Wis c onsin Hi, that's interesting. It seems everyone pronounces them their own way then. I saw (in a forum) several people aspirate the C in "disclose". As for "mistreat", I learned to produce all my TR as something like "CHR" unless it's STR, so it was probably a bad example. If you said ""mistune" (tune -> mistune), would you aspirate the T? I would, because it's part of a different part (morpheme?)http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheSmallestUnitMeaningLanguage/zzhwz/post.htm#444628Wed, 21 Nov 2007 01:21:31 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:444628califjimBut in the following definition even s is considered a meaningful unit. What do you say about it? I say the same as GG did. The s is considered meaningful at the end of a noun. Its meaning is "more than one". Another very short morpheme is n . At the end of some irregular verbs it makes the past participle: show, show n ; take, take n . As GG said, sometimes a particular sound like s (or n ) is a morpheme; sometimes it isn't; it's only a morpheme when it has a meaning. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/TheSmallestUnitMeaningLanguage/zzhwz/post.htm#444540Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:24:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:444540jackson6612CalifJim wrote: what would be a meaningless unit then? In English, k is a meaningless unit of language. lp is a meaningless unit of language. vop is a meaningless unit of language. An English speaker would not be able to assign any meaning to such units. To an English speaker there is nothing in the real world that is referred to by k or lp or vop . CJ But in the following definition even s is considered a meaningful unit. What do you say about it? morpheme the smallest unit of meaning in a language . The words 'so', 'the' and 'boy' consist of one morpheme. 'Boys' consists of two morphemes, 'boy' and 's' .http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheSmallestUnitMeaningLanguage/zzhwz/post.htm#444384Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:09:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:444384mapleJackson6612 wrote: I was wondering that what would be a meaningless unit then? One can divide a word into any parts he wants, meaningful or meaningless. And when the part (unit) is meaningless, you cannot call it a morpheme. ---------------------------------- For your reference: morpheme : A meaningful linguistic unit consisting of a word, such as man, or a word element, such as -ed in walked, that cannot be divided into smaller meaningful parts. (copy from American Heritage Dict. ) A morpheme is the carrier a sememe. (My comprehension) sememe : the meaning expressed by a morpheme. (copy from American Heritage Dict. ) But if you happen to read linguistic essays, you'll probably find that sometimes (if...http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheSmallestUnitMeaningLanguage/zzhwz/post.htm#444355Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:10:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:444355jackson6612Noori wrote: Meaningful. To paraphrase, morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit in a language. I was wondering that what would be a meaningless unit then?http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheSmallestUnitMeaningLanguage/zzhwz/post.htm#444340Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:10:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:444340nooriMeaningful. To paraphrase, morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit in a language.http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheSmallestUnitMeaningLanguage/zzhwz/post.htmTue, 20 Nov 2007 10:54:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:444334jackson6612morpheme the smallest unit of meaning in a language . The words 'so', 'the' and 'boy' consist of one morpheme. 'Boys' consists of two morphemes, 'boy' and 's'. What does meaning mean in the context of the above definition?http://www.englishforums.com/English/NativeClassicalMorphemes/zdjzq/post.htm#436886Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:23:34 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:436886alienvoordGrodan Boll wrote: how can one see if a morpheme is native or classical? A good dictionary.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ComplexityOfGrammar/8/bdjh/Post.htm#435968Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:05:31 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:435968forbesStudies of languages have shown that any given language will compensate for complexity in one area with simplicity in another and that if you compare any two languages that they have roughly the same number of complex and simple areas. Consider the following: Imagine a language with only two vowels and two consonants, a rule that forbids consonant clusters and syllables ending in a consonant and without significant tonality at the morpheme level. We could characterise such a language as phonologically simple. However, discounting the possibilty of homophones, only four words of one syllable and sixteen words of two syllables would be available, which would mean that almost every word/ morpheme would have to be of at least three...http://www.englishforums.com/English/NativeClassicalMorphemes/zdjzq/post.htm#435713Sat, 27 Oct 2007 22:09:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:435713grodan bollhow can one see if a morpheme is native or classical? do they have any specific characteristics?http://www.englishforums.com/English/NativeClassicalMorphemes/zdjzq/post.htmFri, 26 Oct 2007 08:14:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:435046grodan bollCould someone please help me to pick out 10 morphemes that are either native (germanic) or classical (latin)? I apprecaite your help. When people hear a foreign or unfamiliar word for the first time, they try to make sense of it by relating it to words they know well. They guess what it must mean - and often guess wrongly. However, if enough people make the same wrong guess, the error can become part of the language.http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheInternalStructureWordDisagreeable/vkhjg/post.htmThu, 28 Jun 2007 14:59:51 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:385396zoeskytianI get a puzzle about the Internal Structure of the Word “disagreeable”.That is , "disagreeable " has three morphemes, dis-, agree and -able. So, how can they combine to the word "disagreeable"? dis-+agree=disagree →+-able=disagreeable or agree+-able=agreeable →dis-+agreeable=disagreeable? what is your opinion?and why?http://www.englishforums.com/English/LessWithAPluralSMorpheme/dkcmj/post.htm#300609Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:59:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:300609califjimOh, yes. That's true. Native speakers seem to be dropping the word fewer from the language, consistently using less instead. I hear that all the time. Does it bother me? Not really. Only slightly. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/LessWithAPluralSMorpheme/dkcmj/post.htm#300562Mon, 04 Dec 2006 21:06:41 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:300562pastsimpleCalifJim wrote: fewer hats is the correct form if you don't have the of. CJ Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I know, native speakers do say things like " less hats". Sure it's not textbook English but neither is "My sister and me like English". A question for all native speakers: How often do you hear "less" in place of "fewer" where you live? Does it bother you?http://www.englishforums.com/English/LessWithAPluralSMorpheme/dkcmj/post.htm#300505Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:24:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:300505califjimless of the hats , yes, in that context, but less hats , no. fewer hats is the correct form if you don't have the of. In fact, in the context of partially obscuring the view, I see fewer hats and I see less of the hats mean two different things, which you seem to be quite aware of. CJhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/LessWithAPluralSMorpheme/dkcmj/post.htm#300503Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:19:03 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:300503myprofeA) I see less of the hats now. B) I see fewer hats now. The first sentence refers to your vision or view and your ability to see the hats better or worse. From one position you can see all the hats while from another position you can only see a few hats. So you see more or less of the hats depending on where you are positioned. The second sentences refers to the number of hats and therefore uses few.http://www.englishforums.com/English/LessWithAPluralSMorpheme/dkcmj/post.htmMon, 04 Dec 2006 17:02:00 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:300484anonymousCan less ever be paired with a plural such as hats? If, for example, you are watching a theatrical performance in which the actors are wearing spectacular hats, and suddenly, in the middle of the performance, the curtain comes down part of the way, obscuring some of all of the performers' hats. Would it be correct to say, "I see less of the hats now."?http://www.englishforums.com/English/PrefixesNegativePrefixes/3/wvkl/Post.htm#290995Thu, 09 Nov 2006 06:44:35 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:290995anonymouswhere the word has another feature, <img src="/emoticons/emotion-67.gif" alt="Camera " />, <img src="/emoticons/emotion-56.gif" alt="Sleep " />, , <img src="/emoticons/emotion-65.gif" alt="Kiss " />, = NON (Non-Venerial) , , , I.e Elsewhere = DIS (Dis-Affected) UN distinction is semantic, not phonologically driven. Also these prefixes were most likely separate words origionally and over time changed to the bound morpheme we know them as. I see that most of them are semantically driven but there is a distiction between NON and DIS as above from the data I saw.http://www.englishforums.com/English/MasterListGrammaticalCases-English/5/hlvdp/Post.htm#640320Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:28:17 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:640320peter t. danielsWhy, do you know of any others? I thought so. Maybe I'm ignorant of the definition of "morpheme". Do sang and walked have an identical "past tense" morpheme? Of course! It's symbolized either {PAST} or {ed}, and among its allomorphs are /t/ after a voiceless non-alveolar segment and /i > a/ in a small class of "strong" verbs.http://www.englishforums.com/English/MasterListGrammaticalCases-English/5/hlvdp/Post.htm#640318Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:25:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:640318peter t. danielsHere's a complete list of the inflectional morphemes of English, ... boy's boys' big bigger biggest sing sings singing sang sung Please tell me you're kidding. Why? What did I miss? Have you ever read C. C. Fries's *American English Grammar* and *The Structure of English*? Have you even heard of C. C. Fries, you MITnik, you?http://www.englishforums.com/English/MasterListGrammaticalCases-English/5/hlvdp/Post.htm#640304Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:33:01 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:640304harlan messingerWhy, do you know of any others? I thought so. Maybe I'm ignorant of the definition of "morpheme". Do sang and walked have an identical "past tense" morpheme? Yes, "sang" and "walked" demonstrate different realizations of the same morpheme: past tense.http://www.englishforums.com/English/MasterListGrammaticalCases-English/5/hlvdp/Post.htm#640300Tue, 05 Sep 2006 19:24:17 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:640300nathanPlease tell me you're kidding. Why, do you know of any others? I thought so. Maybe I'm ignorant of the definition of "morpheme". Do sang and walked have an identical "past tense" morpheme?http://www.englishforums.com/English/MasterListGrammaticalCases-English/4/hlvdp/Post.htm#640213Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:43:59 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:640213peter t. danielsOK, this looks as if my supposition was correct. What you want is English grammatical morphology in simple lists. There ... English (of course they are not as long since the whole business is simpler in English than in Spanish), e.g. Here's a complete list of the inflectional morphemes of English, each on a suitable base: boy boys boy's boys' big bigger biggest sing sings singing sang sunghttp://www.englishforums.com/English/VerbalNounAccompanyThe/dbgrp/post.htm#257311Sat, 19 Aug 2006 06:50:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:257311inchoateknowledgeHi Verbal nouns have a verb as a base morpheme. If the attached derivational affixes (morphemes like -ness, pre, etc.) change their syntactic cathegory and the new lexeme is a noun, then you have a verbal noun. advance + -ment If the rules of grammar require a definite article to precede them, apply them, not otherwise.http://www.englishforums.com/English/ISawHisLook/dbdvc/post.htm#256417Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:08:49 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:256417inchoateknowledgeThere is no difference unless it is rethorical. The '-ful' suffix gives the meaning something is full of a certain quality the morpheme suggests.http://www.englishforums.com/English/Head/cqncm/post.htmThu, 27 Jul 2006 13:10:10 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:249453inchoateknowledge1. Oddly enough, he went home early. 2. Despite there not being many people at the party, we insisted on staying. I try to find all the heads in the two sentences. (Heads will roll.) 1. Let me think, it is phrases that have heads, is it not? How many phrases are there in the first sentence? 2? Or productum 6? (there are 6 words in the sentence) 'Oddly enough' is phrase. The head is 'odd', not oddly, because the head is to be a morpheme. 'he went home early' is a phrase.What is the head here? Went. Why? Because went, the morpheme of which is went (the same), determines the syntactic function of the phrase. 'enough, he went' Is it a phrase? I think so. what about this one? I do not think it has syntactical...http://www.englishforums.com/English/VerbalNoun/cqncg/post.htmThu, 27 Jul 2006 12:40:54 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:249447inchoateknowledgeAm I correct in saying gerund is a verbal noun? Going home I met Joe. Which is the gerund here? 'Going home'? Yes, I think. What is 'going'? A non-finite verb in the gerund phrase the direct object of which is 'a house', nicht war? Am I correct in saying participle is an adjectival phrase? 'Walking horse' Walking is a participle, a verbal adjective. 'Walking horse' is a gerund phrase as well. Swimming in the churning river with broken legs at night is dangerous. Let us analyze this sentence. I give it a try and should I be wrong please rectify my mistakes. Swimming in the river with broken legs at night is a gerund phrase, and is the subject of the sentence. Swimming in the churning river is a gerund phrase...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AFamousFruitInMyCountry/3/cnlwl/Post.htm#244138Mon, 10 Jul 2006 05:43:31 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:244138kabayanThe word Durian is derived from malay/indonesian language. It is comprised of two morphemes Duri and -an. -an is a suffix. Duri means Spike, while the suffix -an gives the meaning that the fruit is full of spikes. another fruit that has similar word forming is Rambutan. Rambut means Hair. So rambutan means a fruit that has hair-like structure. I prefer rambutan than durian.http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheReformOfLinguistics/9/xpch/Post.htm#236213Thu, 15 Jun 2006 02:11:54 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:236213anonymousAnon2 here. Anon1 has failed to respond to my challenge to come up with an alternative analysis of Chinese that doesn't use words. Perhaps he/she is: 1. Too busy. 2. Couldn't be bothered to deal with people who obviously "don't get it". 3. Has decided that he/she was wrong and doesn't want to comment. 4. Is busy working on a new analysis of Chinese that uses "phrases" as the basic syntactic unit rather than "words". I was actually looking forward to Anon1 coming up with a different and possibly eye-opening grammatical model of Chinese. It would also be interesting to contemplate the implications of this for students' strategies in learning English. If Chinese are unable to conceptualise "words" in their own...http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheReformOfLinguistics/8/xpch/Post.htm#233891Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:11:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:233891anonymousThat is not the point of the example. You seem to be reading far too much into my words. To tell you the truth, I have great difficulty figuring out what your point is. Mainly because you keep taunting other people but refuse to take a position yourself. In my experience with this word, and many more like it, Japanese people tend to believe that the English word animal is an extremely good equivalent, which it is not for most people. In fact, it is typically a very poor equivalent. Perhaps the fact that it is better than any other simple word is sufficient for you. That is fine with me. I do not consider this ideal, from my perspective. You are free to feel however you do. Let me take this paragraph...http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheReformOfLinguistics/6/xpch/Post.htm#227678Mon, 22 May 2006 03:01:26 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:227678anonymousForbes wrote: A word about classifiers. I looked up "classifier" in my dictionary (a very good one) and it does not define it! I turned to dictionary.com and found the following definition: A word or morpheme used in some languages in certain contexts, such as counting, that indicates the semantic class to which an item belongs. For example, hon is used in Japanese in counting long slender objects such as sticks or pencils. I do not think that classifiers in that sense exist in English. Whilst one can say "a head of lettuce" that way of speaking is something of an optional extra and one can say "some lettuce" or even just "lettuce". When you use "a head of" you are not putting "lettuce" into any...