Thank you for this video! I'm in the first year of my bachelor's degree at an online school. They SUCK at teaching (actually I wouldn't know bc they never teach us shit) so I literally have to teach myself everything. So I'm grateful to have found this video before my linguistics exam next month.
I always get confused with the comfortable example because I think the change in the pronunciation is diff as a suffix due to the phonological rule making it an allomorph of able
thanks for the lecture! but why did you put like as an affix and not a morpheme when it can stand alone as a word, but -li is a morpheme and not an affix?
19:27 Don't forget to lengthen the vowel in _ház._ "Háza" means his/her house but "haza" means home country. You forgot to lengthen the first vowel in both the pronunciation and the IPA transcription. Just to be clear, "egy ház" means one house, "egyház" means church or clergy. Did you confuse these two? The phrase meaning 'one house' is two words, so "egy" is not a prefix (unless you meant church/clergy). Also, "egybor" is not a word. Look, I'm always happy when a linguist mentions my language but these examples were weird. Better examples would've been _megy_ (to go), _elmegy_ (to go away), _megyek_ (I go), _fut_ (to run), _elfut_ (to run away) with _el_ being a prefix and a bound morpheme based on this data alone (in actuality it's a free morpheme).
I think , technically yes , it will show all of its grammar via independent particles/ words ,, and will have no inflictions or derivations ,, and no compound words ,,, so any compound meaning will be shown by describing words rather than combining them to a new single one ,,, this language will have longer sentences than usual and less grammar ,, i think a conlang or a code language could be like this , as it only is used for limited situations , ,,, you can search isolating languages for a near idea ( of coarse isolating languages aren't an example , but it's a near idea )
Amazing work ofc, but the Ancient Greek pronounciation was kinda wrong 😅 It makes me wonder though, if it is truly phonetically transcribed like that, could it be pronounced differently back then? Anyway, in γράφω the φ is pronounced as f/ph. So, in phonemic transcription, it is something like γrafo.
I'm rewatching this series 4 months later. Anyway. 8:07 "When you take away from a morpheme, you get no relevant identifiable meaning." Unless you consider the Czech word žena, meaning woman (nominative singular). If you take away the "a", you get žen which is the genitive plural form.
But we would be talking about the morphemes of _sing._ You can't break the word _sing_ down and get a meaningful part of that same word that means something to do with singing.
@@kijul468 oh so it has to do something with sing when you break it down, idk all of this linguistics stuff is pretty confusing and tedious. sin to me has a meaning idk why we added a "g" and gave it a whole new meaning. it is insane to me. it makes no sense .
@@devonashwa7977 It's because _sin_ and _sing_ come from completely different origins. A _g_ wasn't added to _sin,_ _sing_ always had that _g._ _Sin_ does have meaning, but it is a separate word and separate root to _sing._ Edit: Just another note. In English, there is no suffix that exists that's just _-g._
Thank you for this video! I'm in the first year of my bachelor's degree at an online school. They SUCK at teaching (actually I wouldn't know bc they never teach us shit) so I literally have to teach myself everything. So I'm grateful to have found this video before my linguistics exam next month.
Thank you so much for sharing this!
amazing video. Thank you so much.
I always get confused with the comfortable example because I think the change in the pronunciation is diff as a suffix due to the phonological rule making it an allomorph of able
The joke at the end hahahah brilliant.
amazing video
Good explaination 👍🏼
thanks for the lecture! but why did you put like as an affix and not a morpheme when it can stand alone as a word, but -li is a morpheme and not an affix?
lifesaver^^
19:27 Don't forget to lengthen the vowel in _ház._ "Háza" means his/her house but "haza" means home country. You forgot to lengthen the first vowel in both the pronunciation and the IPA transcription.
Just to be clear, "egy ház" means one house, "egyház" means church or clergy. Did you confuse these two? The phrase meaning 'one house' is two words, so "egy" is not a prefix (unless you meant church/clergy). Also, "egybor" is not a word.
Look, I'm always happy when a linguist mentions my language but these examples were weird. Better examples would've been _megy_ (to go), _elmegy_ (to go away), _megyek_ (I go), _fut_ (to run), _elfut_ (to run away) with _el_ being a prefix and a bound morpheme based on this data alone (in actuality it's a free morpheme).
Can languages consist solely of monomorphemic words?
I think , technically yes , it will show all of its grammar via independent particles/ words ,, and will have no inflictions or derivations ,, and no compound words ,,, so any compound meaning will be shown by describing words rather than combining them to a new single one ,,, this language will have longer sentences than usual and less grammar ,, i think a conlang or a code language could be like this , as it only is used for limited situations , ,,, you can search isolating languages for a near idea ( of coarse isolating languages aren't an example , but it's a near idea )
Amazing work ofc, but the Ancient Greek pronounciation was kinda wrong 😅 It makes me wonder though, if it is truly phonetically transcribed like that, could it be pronounced differently back then?
Anyway, in γράφω the φ is pronounced as f/ph. So, in phonemic transcription, it is something like γrafo.
Nice 24:39
I'm rewatching this series 4 months later. Anyway.
8:07 "When you take away from a morpheme, you get no relevant identifiable meaning." Unless you consider the Czech word žena, meaning woman (nominative singular). If you take away the "a", you get žen which is the genitive plural form.
There I would analyse _žen-_ as the root, and by adding -a, you get the nominative singular, and by adding -∅, you get the genitive plural.
one year later, if you take apart cat, you get @. whats up with that? around 10 min mark. dont lie to us we need answers
This lecture is just toooo looooong! This could have been a 5 minute video easily.
you can split sing into sin
But we would be talking about the morphemes of _sing._ You can't break the word _sing_ down and get a meaningful part of that same word that means something to do with singing.
@@kijul468 oh so it has to do something with sing when you break it down, idk all of this linguistics stuff is pretty confusing and tedious. sin to me has a meaning idk why we added a "g" and gave it a whole new meaning. it is insane to me. it makes no sense .
@@devonashwa7977 It's because _sin_ and _sing_ come from completely different origins. A _g_ wasn't added to _sin,_ _sing_ always had that _g._ _Sin_ does have meaning, but it is a separate word and separate root to _sing._
Edit: Just another note. In English, there is no suffix that exists that's just _-g._