As an anonymous user, you can only add new data. If you would like to also modify existing data, please create an account and indicate your languages on your user page.
DefinedMeaning talk:bound morpheme (375659)
only when attached to a root morpheme
- I think this should be formulated more clearly. Is it to be attached immediately to a root morpheme or is it just meant that it must occur in a word where there also occurs a root morphem?
- Maybe it should be said: "to a root morpheme or a stem"?
- And what is a root morpheme? A morpheme that can form am independent form? But isn't it possible that no inflexion form of a particular word consists of just a root morpheme, as in Latin word lupus? Therefore the definition of "root morpheme" is vital here. If it is conceived in several ways, then the formulation here is ambiguous.
Is it the same as affix? Andres 06:43, 1 November 2006 (CET)
- Yeah, I don't like the definition much either. Bound morphemes are essentially the opposite of free morphemes, so I was thinking maybe "A morpheme that cannot stand alone as an actual word." or something of that nature. Also, all affixes are bound morphemes, but all bound morphemes are not necessarily affixes (Example: "-ed" is a bound morpheme, but not a suffix) -Rappo 06:52, 1 November 2006 (CET)
- Yes, you are right. Only, I guess, sometimes the word "affix" is used as including both derivational and grammatical (inflexional) morphemes. Then, maybe in one of its meanings, "affix" is a synonym of "bound morpheme".
- And again, "lup-" cannot stand alone as an actual word but I guess it is not a bound morpheme.
- This is a principal problem. How to get the definitions unambiguous? How to bind the terms in definitions with fixed meanings? I think that relations are not enough because there are too many types of relations. I think we should have a function enabling to link "root morpheme" in the definition to a certain DM. Andres 07:14, 1 November 2006 (CET)
- Also, you seemed to be fairly skilled in several languages - I got these translations from Wikipedia, but some were in plural form. Can you please make sure that I properly made them singular? Thank you. -Rappo 06:54, 1 November 2006 (CET)
- Yes, I'll do it.
Are we to be afraid of edit conflicts on talk pages as well? Andres 07:14, 1 November 2006 (CET)
- I wrote another def in French. Tell me if it is any better (and translate back to English if it is, please). Thanks, Kipcool 12:14, 3 May 2007 (EDT)