Search results for 'tag:Plurals tag:Morphology' matching tags 'Plurals' and 'Morphology'

Re: In need of Correction

Pao3 — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:04:26 GMT

First off, I'm sorry for that mess. It ignored the format I put it into...

I'd like to thank You for such a quick response and correction. I'm not sure about "capturing" either^^... I try to "catch" all streptococcus. Mikrochem is a name. I also wasn't sure about "streptococcus"= is it plural?(I research many kinds of them)///EDIT///: plural is streptococci

"The subject of my graduation work is capturing Beta-hemolytic streptococci in Mikrochem laboratory during the half year period. In the theoretical section I handle each individual type of Beta-hemolytic streptococci . I describe their morphology, cultivation and diseases that they cause. In the practical section I address methods of assessment Beta-hemolytic streptococci involving microscopy, cultivation and antigenic analyses. In the research section I ascertain frequency of each types of Beta-hemolytic streptococci in relation to gender and age."

Re: Proficiency alongside "poverty".

Cool Breeze — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:02:24 GMT

Hi Forbes

Thank you for your long reply. I do appreciate it. I would just like to say that I my opinion is based on the knowledge I have of the Germanic and Romance languages and it is of course very subjective. I fully understand that not everyone agrees with me and what I consider easy may be difficult for some others as I have already said. However, I have given my honest opinion and I don't think you or anybody else would want me to lie on this forum? I'll add some comments.

I thought that might be what you were getting at.

I think it is a mistake to equate complexity solely with the degree of inflectional morphology of a language. I agree. I was talking about morphology only. To my mind I made no mistake. I do know what is difficult about English.

I have never studied Finnish, but I would be willing to bet that at least one of the following is true:

1. that a language with at least 30 cases has a corresponding lack of prepositions

There are only about 15 cases in Finnish - I don't actually remember the exact number and didn't bother to check, but we always
have a different form for the plural and that explains the 30. It is true that Finnish has fewer prepositions than English. In my opinion the number of changes made to words and the number of inflections cause far more difficulties for nonnative learners than the number of English prepositions, though..

2. that word order is fairly free and is used to express different emphases Correct.

3. that the inflectional morphology, though complex, is regular Correct again. Someone has said that there are ten rules in English grammar and 10,000 exceptions and 10,000 rules in Finnish grammar and ten exceptions. That's not quite true, though.

4. that it is perhaps not quite so difficult to learn once you begin to get the hang of it That is a matter of opinion and dispute. Quite a few nonnatives have said it is very difficult. They say it is hopeless to try and master the grammar from books. There may or may not be some truth in this. The number of "rules" must seem endless to some and people say it's a better idea not to worry too much about all the inflections and changes in the middle of the words but just go where people talk and learn the grammatical complexities by ear.

I have to say that I have met one or two Finns and they do seem to relish the idea that Finnish is a "difficult" language. I have also met some "Swedish Finnish" (I am not sure what the correct term is) and they all tell me that they are bilingual in Swedish and Finnish. They will of course have been helped in acquiring Finnish because either they live in a bilingual community or started to learn the language at an early age (I am not sure how it works) so they would not have been prejudiced by any concept of "difficulty". I expect that your idea that Finnish is difficult is confirmed by the fact that you do not know many foreigners living in Finland who have mastered it. This will be because:

1. It is more difficult to learn any language when you are an adult That is true about all languages.

2. Someone who is working full time will not be able to devote more than an hour or two a week to learning the language That is true about all languages.

3. Everyone will find it more convenient to speak to foreigners in English and there is therefore little incentive for them to learn Finnish There is a lot of truth in this. However, there are lots of people who have come to Finland for good and want to learn the language.

4. You keep harping on about how difficult the language is and put them off! I have spoken to Brits in Finland who say the opposite. They say they get encouraged in their efforts to speak Finnish. I don't think we are any better or worse than other people in this respect.

(I live in Spain and all the above applies to expats.)

You think that English is "simple". I venture to suggest that this is because you started to learn it at an early age and were introduced to it gradually so that you did not perceive its difficulties; you acquired your mastery over a long period. Also, I suspect that Finns are "subjected" to English in a way that the English are not subjected to foreign languages. A lot can be learned without realising it.

No. I have perceived its difficulties all right. They are the spelling and the idioms and the exceptions, for me anyway. The grammar, as I understand it, and structure are the easiest of the languages I am familiar with. Mind you, I don't pretend to be perfect in English. Actually, I don't think I deserve the icon, or whatever is the right word, that says I have a good grasp of the language. I would say I have a good grasp of the grammar but my vocabulary isn't at all on a par with native speakers. My knowledge of idioms and colloquialisms could also be much better.

Consider the following:

There is no single way of negating verbs in English. I do not eat, but I must not. I do not have any eggs, but I have not got any eggs.

There is no single way of forming questions. Do you come here a lot? but Can I go out?

True. And a third way: Who came? What happened?

It is not always easy to know when to use the continuous form of the verb. Try and explain why you can say Are you having cakes for tea? but cannot go into a shop and say Are you having cakes?

The meaning of prepositional verbs is not always transparent. John has got it in for me.

English is a highly analytic language and meaning is often derived from context:

A. You keep complaining. Have you got it in for me?

B. I asked you to bring in the shopping. Have you got it in for me?

These are just a tiny example of the complexities of English and they have nothing to do with inflectional morphology.

I am familiar with these things and I admit I make mistakes using expressions and tenses. However, I was referring to the fact that English words have only a handful of forms and the fewer inflections there are the easier it is to learn them. Using them correctly is indeed another thing, I agree with you there. Other languages have their "difficulties" too. I admit that English is difficult, at least for me, in this respect. No language is easy in every respect, or if there is one, then it is impossible to express nuances in that language.

As I said in my previous post, what is easy for some may be difficult for others. My views are based solely on my experience and I certainly don't expect everybody to agree with me.

Cheers

Re: was/were question

Englishuser — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 21:38:51 GMT

Hi Sherry-Norman,

Welcome to the forums.

You asked:

"... neither morphology of the chromosomes nor their number [was/were] determined at this stage."

That would make it plural? "... of chromosomes" being implied? or no

You should use 'was'. See CalifJim's post (below) for further details.

was/were question

Sherry-Norman — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 21:18:36 GMT

"... neither morphology of the chromosomes nor their number [was/were] determined at this stage."

That would make it plural? "... of chromosomes" being implied? or no?

was/were question

Anonymous — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 20:38:17 GMT

"... neither morphology of the chromosomes nor their number [was/were] determined at this stage."

That would make it plural? "... of chromosomes" being implied? or no?

Re: asking about these words?

rvw — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 02:59:11 GMT

Soulwhisper wrote:

first of all....hi am a new member here from saudi arabia...and am taking morphology...and i have few questions need answers . first what can we consider the word..writings..in the sentence HIS WRITINGS WAS PUBLISHED IN ...is it right to say its containing lexical derivational morpheme and grammatical too. also can we say its result of conversion...and PUBLISHED can we call it a base.....thats all and thanks...: )

Some (most?) of us at this forum are not professional linguists, and so cannot answer your question.

On a more basic level, the phrase should be His writings were published in .... (plural noun requiring a plural verb), or His writing was published in .... (singular noun requiring a singular verb).

The word writing is from the gerund of write. One of its meanings is a written composition: a book, pamphlet, poem, article, or other literary production: publication. ---Webster's Third New International Dictionary.

Many verbs can have nouns (gerunds) made from them by the addition of ing. For example, run and running, hammer and hammering. Writing and running have their own entries in the dictionary; hammering does not. Perhaps writing and running have acquired sufficient independence and additional meanings to be considered separate from write and run. Is this what is meant by a lexical derivational morpheme?

I am even less clear about published. I can tell you that were published is an example of the passive voice, formed by a form of the verb to be and the past participle of the main verb.

Re: Latin Plurals

suzi — Sat, 24 Apr 2004 10:06:07 GMT

as words become integrated into every day life the trend is for the patterns of the "new" language to take over, in terms of both spelling, morphology (endings) and pronunciation. Forums is becoming the standard now, as is medias.

As for status, both sound a bit clumsy and if I was writring it I'd try to find a way of avoiding the plural altogether! LOL

Re: Morphology

wumanfu — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 08:15:04 GMT

Hi, this is just a cut & paste job from various internet resources:
1 The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology
2 The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar
3 Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language
4 The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics (7 parts)
5 Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage
6 Merriam-Webster Unabridged
References
1 The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology
morpho- comb. form of Gr. morph shape, form, as in morphology (XIX).
2 The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar
morphology The study of word formation. Traditionally Morphology (concerned with the internal rules of words) contrasts with SYNTAX (concerned with the rules governing the way words are put together in sentences). Morphology itself covers two main types of word formation: INFLECTION, concerned with changes to an individual lexeme (which remains âthe same wordâ) for grammatical reasons (e.g. showing number or tense) and DERIVATION, which is concerned with the formation of one word from another (e.g. by the addition of an affix). â¢ morphological, morphologically.
3 Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language
MORPHOLOGY. In LINGUISTICS, the study of the structure of words, as opposed to SYNTAX, the study of the arrangement of words in the higher units of phrases, clauses, and sentences. The two major branches are inflectional morphology (the study of inflections) and lexical morphology (the study of WORD-FORMATION). See ACCIDENCE, INFLECTION, LINGUISTIC TYPOLOGY, MORPHEME.
4a The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics
morphology. The study of the grammatical structure of words and the categories realized by them. Thus a morphological analysis will divide girls into girl and -s, which realizes âpluralâ; singer into sing and -er, which marks it as a noun denoting an agent. A category is âmorphologicalâ if it is realized within words. Thus morphological case is case as realized by different elements within nouns or words of other classes, as opposed to case roles realized by independent words or word order; a morphological causative is a causative form of a verb as opposed to a causative construction, and so on.
4b The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics
âsplit morphology hypothesisâ. The view, held widely but challenged within Lexical Morphology, that inflectional and derivational morphology are in principle separate.
4c The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics
Non-Catenative Morphology. Account of morphology developed by J. J. McCarthy in the early 1980s by analogy with Autosegmental Phonology. Basically a technique for representing systems such as that of Arabic, in which, e.g. the word for âbookâ (Egyptian Arabic [kita:b]) and the word for âhe wroteâ [katab] have the same consonantal root (kâ¦tâ¦b) but two different patterns of vowels. In the representation proposed the root is assigned to one tier, analogous to those of Autosegmental Phonology, and the vowel pattern to another; both units will then be realized discontinuously.
4d The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics
Natural Morphology. A broad approach to morphology, developed especially in Germany and Austria from the early 1980s, in which both the structural tendencies of languages in general, and the specific processes of change in individual languages, are explained in part by the operation of hypothetically universal laws of naturalness. Thus it is easier to understand words if their morphological structure is transparent: hence, in particular, if categories are realized by affixes (English bake-d or hen-s) rather than e.g. by vowel change (English took or men). In that sense affixation is more natural: hence, in languages generally, it is the commonest process and, as specific languages change, the tendency, all else being equal, is for its scope to increase. E.g. in the history of English, plurals with affixes, like cows, have tended to replace ones that are less transparent, like kine. By other proposed laws, it is natural e.g. that a plural, which is marked (1) in opposition to a singular, should be realized by the presence rather than the absence of an affix: plural hen-s vs. singular hen, not plural hen vs. singular hen-s. Hence, again, this pattern is found more widely across languages, and, again, specific changes will tend towards it. Laws such as these reduce to a general principle of iconicity. But one law may conflict with another, and conflicts may be resolved in different ways in different types of language. Moreover, any law may conflict with structures inherent in a specific system. Hence all apply, as above, âall else being equalâ.
4e The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics
Lexical Morphology. View of morphology current especially in the USA, within a broadly generative framework. The basic unit is the morpheme; words have a constituency structure of which morphemes are the minimal elements; and, in the extreme version, the entire construction of words, including those aspects that are traditionally called inflectional, belongs to an account of the lexicon. The belief that this version is correct is the Strong (or Strict) Lexicalist Hypothesis.
4f The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics
inflectional morphology. Branch of morphology concerned with inflections: hence especially with both the semantic and the formal structure of paradigms. An inflectional affix is similarly an affix described as an inflection, a process by which e.g. such an affix is added is an inflectional formation, and so on. Opp. derivational morphology. But the distinction has often been challenged, e.g. in Lexical Morphology.
4g The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics
derivational morphology. Branch of morphology concerned with the derivation of one word in the lexicon from another: e.g. that of hanger from hang, or of countess from count. In these examples, -er and -ess are derivational affixes, and the processes of which they are part are derivational formations. Traditionally distinguished from inflectional morphology ; also from the formation of compounds.
5 Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage
morphology is the study of the structure and form of words. It includes both inflection (how words change their forms according to grammatical function, e.g. come, comes, came, etc.) and derivation (how one word is formed from another, e.g. unhelpful from helpful and helpful in turn from help).
6 Merriam-Webster Unabridged
morphology
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -es
Etymology: German morphologie, from Greek morph- (from morph
emacron form) + German -logie -logy â [more at]
FORM
1 a : a branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of animals and plants : a study of the forms, relations, metamorphoses, and phylogenetic
development of organs apart from their functions â [see
ANATOMY]
; compare
PHYSIOLOGY
b : the features comprised in the form and structure of an organism or any of its parts
2 a : a study and description of word-formation in a language including inflection, derivation, and compounding -- distinguished from syntax b : the system
of word-forming elements and processes in a language
3 a : a study of the structure or form of something
b : the structure or form of something :
MAKEUP
settlements bore a strong resemblance to those of New England -- G.T.Trewartha>
4 : the external structure of rocks in relation to the development of erosional forms or topographic features :
GEOMORPHOLOGY
5 a : the study of the development of the forms of crystals b : the assemblage of forms on a crystal