at first glance i thought so too, but "blackened" is actually ambigous. it can be an adjective (like in "Blackened is the end..."), but it can also be a verb if we think about the -ed as an affix that indicates tense, making it a past verb ("the fire blackened the wall")
This is actually very common in french and English (I can’t speak for other languages) where the past participle becomes an adjective. In this case: it was blackened (v.) by fire so it is a blackened (adj.) wall. The same occurs with a good quantity of adjectives in English and french being as they are an effect/description “as a result of” an action.
I'm not taking any linguistics courses, but I am using your vids to give me a basic idea of how to create a language (many videos I watched on creating own language for stories had a knowledge of linguistics). Your videos are so helpful and you are a bit funny at times! If all goes well, I might take linguistics as a course :D
morphemes are the smallest unit of meaning. Like bird, or -s meaning "plural". A word is composed of one or more morphemes. Sometimes words can be morphemes just as themselves, as long as they're free morphemes. But, even the definition of "word" isn't very clear itself.
Hello:) hope this gets answered in time. I am studying for an upcoming exam. According to the solutions of a worksheet, the morpheme {except} in the word is a free, functional. I cannot fathom why tho, because isn’t {except} a verb? Therefore shouldn’t it be free, lexical? I know it might be used as a preposition but in this case isn’t it kind of verblike?
Hello, tagalog speaker here.Your example was nice, however using "bili" as your example might have not been the best choice because of the inherent letter i's in the word. The infix is actually "in" rather than "ni". Another example that would illustrate it better would be the verb "sulat" (meaning "to write") whose past tense is "sinulat". Or the verb meaning "to take" which is "kuha" whose past form is "kinuha".
+Jeff Bote Sometimes the data is simplified to make the process more understandable. I don't know the languages in detail myself, so I have to trust other textbook writers and linguists who provide these examples that they are accurate. So, likely this was just simplified to be a decent example explaining the process.
'kuha' has lots meaning in dialect. contradictive to the suggestion it being without purpose given reason to what that so if as is. . like existence sein
I do not know what dialect you are referring to, but he specifically said Tagalog, so i responded with examples that exist in Tagalog. I know I do not speak for all Tagalog speakers out there, but since Tagalog is my L1, and I am fluent in it, I thought I might give some helpful information about it. Sure, there may be other dialects where "kuha" and "sulat" mean different things, but the focus on my comment was the Tagalog I knew growing up.
+Jesuit Clone 31 Yes, that is true. I am currently taking linguistics, and my professors used those as examples for English albeit being iffy about it since they are words in and of themselves. They also do not serve an inflectional (grammatical) meaning like in Tagalog, or a derivational meaning as in Cebuano. In English, those are usually only used as a way to emphasize the emotion of the speaker.
is there a video where you go more into detail over free morphemes (lexical and grammatical)? Like "I" and "to" and "yesterday" are they grammatical or lexical morphemes?
One question: how do circumfixes (in English, that would be the en- / -en in 'enlighten' or em- / -en in 'embolden') function in morphological trees, such as in the one for "enlightened"? My initial thought was that it would start with the root 'light' and then progress as [ _light_ → _light_*en* → *en*_lighten_ → _enlighten_*ed* ], but now I'm wondering if it would look more like [ _light_ → *en*_light_*en* → _enlighten_*ed* ], whereby both parts of the circumfix comprise only a single branch on the tree. Any idea as to which variant is proper? Cheers~
Interesting, our professor told us that there are infixes in English e.g absofuckinglutely and self-un-loading. However, this was really helpful for my exam preparation, so thanks! :)
Yes, -fucking- and -bloody- and -frickin'- and -goddamn- are all infixes in English. They're different from the typical affixes that we normally encounter, though, so that's why I leave them out at the intro level.
You said that in "judgers" the root word was judge but listed the three morpheme as [judge][er][s] Wouldn't the second morpheme be [r]? If they are the smallest unit of meaning, shouldn't they be non intersecting? The "judge" morphine and the "er" morpheme intersect.
I don't know if it's still relevant for you, but I think "judg" can be combined to "judging," thus [judg][er][s] is okay. But the root is still "judge."
The root is the free morpheme because it can stand alone Example: Disfunction We have the root or the free morpheme is : function The affix which is here a prefix which is also a bound morpheme is : dis Hope this was clear
@@awadhesh2270 that's a special case of words that are old from other languages We have receive Deceive Conceive Perceive...etc I think it's just one morpheme here because a morpheme must have either of these 2 functions: - a grammatical function - a meaningful meaning Receive deceive etc if they're devided won't have either one of these 2 properties Like the world sci in science It s taken from an other old language so in english it cannot stand alone and it has to be attached to another to form a morpheme Was it clear?
While temp is a word, it is not a morpheme of meaning in this case as tempt and temp have different origins. Also temp is highly informal as it is just short for temporary.
How can I tell whether the "-er" (in "fatter") morpheme is a comparative (meaning: more fat) or an ending representing the agent of an action (meaning: someone who makes things fat, a fatter)? (This question may seem ridiculous if you're a human, but it's not ridiculous at all when you try to program a computer to recognize morphepems and to understand human languages.) I see that you encountered a similar problem with the "-ing" morpheme. Interestingly, the word "vivid" itself is complex, when you analyze it in the context of Latin, where the "viv-" is the root, and "-id" is a suffix ;) As for the repeated "tt" - is there any rule that says which letters should be repeated in this way and in what circumstances? Does it have any proper name in linguistics?
Amazing video that’s I’ve found very useful in resupplementing my knowledge. The only thing I would add is that English has one very unique infix: fuckin’/fucking and is recognised by MIT (see. 24.900 Introduction to Linguistics on Open Course Ware), as in fun-fuckin’(/g)-tastic
TheTrevTutor Thank you so much for answering me. I wrote that on my exam and yesterday on the revision of the exam my linguistics teacher told me it wasn't even a morpheme. I got really confused.
Although, if "watched" was used as an adjective, like, "it was a widely watched movie", then it would be a derivational morpheme, not an inflectional morpheme.
@@zakariaazrir143 No, accept is the free morpheme here. -Able is a bound suffix meaning that the 'accept' is enabled, i.e. acceptable=able to be accepted.
Can someone tell me the affixes plus the root of words like "illogical" or "incredibly"? il- ; -log- ; -ical il-, -logical il- ; -log- ; -ic ; -al ? thanks!
You'd have to study the language first and find patterns in meaning before determining whether something has meaning or not. That's what field linguists and computational linguists are for.
Yep. That's a good example of an infix in English. We can do it with some curse words, but the constraints on where we can insert it is a little too complicated at this point.
Hello :) i really like your video but there actually is a word with an infix in english: speedometer. speed -> free morpheme, o->infix,meter->free morpheme. Maybe you add this to your video :)
That is not an infix, because "-o-" is not a morpheme. It has no meaning, whether inflectional or derivational. It could be called a "linking vowel", motivated by phonological epenthesis to join "speed" and "meter" into one word.
Hello! TrevTutor:) I am a university student learning linguistic recently ,and I personally found something hard to understnad during watching this video. For example Limit+ed>this not only can be past tence of the verb"Limit" but also be an adjective so it means that inflectional morphemes can also form a new word like a derivational morephemes. What do you think about it?
How many morphemes are in the word "people"? Because person has 1 morpheme and so does many correct? But if "people" means many person, how does this work?
My MA task brought me here. I noticed one room for improvement tho in this lesson. In binili (Tagalog word) since bili is the root, the infix should be “in” not “ni”.
@@yaboialfyn5438 Pati doesn't mean anything in English, even though it does in Latin. Patible would be correct, though, even though that's a very unusual word, but regardless compatible is derived from that word so it is a morpheme.
It’s a clip of “x cups full” that appears in a few American dialects of English, but it’s not the common plural. Perhaps it could be analyzed as an infix, but it’s highly restricted. Cupfuls and spoonfuls is the standard plural form.
-ful is not equal to the word full. It's just a suffix. It makes the noun an adjective. Case in point, rightful= right+ (-ful) doesn't mean it's full of right. It just means legitimate.
![[Introduction to Linguistics] Derivational and Inflectional Morphemes, and Morphological Changes](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UiYPVP9Hb7M/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Introduction to Linguistics] Derivational and Inflectional Morphemes, and Morphological Changes](/img/tr.png)
![[Introduction to Linguistics] Phrase Structure Rules, Specifiers, Complements, Tree Structures](/img/1.gif)
You just saved me HOURS on badly edited powerpoints for this simple concept! Thank you so much!
Fantastic teaching Trev Tutor. Congratulations. Your pedagogy is EXCELLENT.
This is so great preparing for diachronic linguistic exam. 👍👍
Blackened is also an adjective:) So the process is the following Adj->Verb->Adj/Verb
at first glance i thought so too, but "blackened" is actually ambigous. it can be an adjective (like in "Blackened is the end..."), but it can also be a verb if we think about the -ed as an affix that indicates tense, making it a past verb ("the fire blackened the wall")
This is actually very common in french and English (I can’t speak for other languages) where the past participle becomes an adjective. In this case: it was blackened (v.) by fire so it is a blackened (adj.) wall. The same occurs with a good quantity of adjectives in English and french being as they are an effect/description “as a result of” an action.
@@schonmaharaj6939 same goes for German 🙈
But I'm glad I wasn't the only one who caught that and thought about it ☺️
I'm not taking any linguistics courses, but I am using your vids to give me a basic idea of how to create a language (many videos I watched on creating own language for stories had a knowledge of linguistics). Your videos are so helpful and you are a bit funny at times! If all goes well, I might take linguistics as a course :D
This has helped me so much. Thank you
simrit sawhney
You have no idea how helpful that was ❤👌
This was so helpful. Thank you!
#BestTeacherEver
I love the lectures where can I get it from please.
Thank you verry our virtual teacher.
-A student from Morocco.
you said that there are no infixes in english but what about "speed-o-meter"?
Thank you for your video! It's great! But may I know the differences between word and morpheme? Thanks.
morphemes are the smallest unit of meaning. Like bird, or -s meaning "plural". A word is composed of one or more morphemes.
Sometimes words can be morphemes just as themselves, as long as they're free morphemes. But, even the definition of "word" isn't very clear itself.
noob
Good pace. Great illustrations
Excellent job
Well done!!!
Very useful for me........I am learning these things for the first time so found it very intresting
Hello:) hope this gets answered in time. I am studying for an upcoming exam. According to the solutions of a worksheet, the morpheme {except} in the word is a free, functional. I cannot fathom why tho, because isn’t {except} a verb? Therefore shouldn’t it be free, lexical? I know it might be used as a preposition but in this case isn’t it kind of verblike?
I speak both English and Tagalog. Nice! Both languages are in this lecture.
Could blackened be an adjective? for example, the blackened paper was torn
Hello, tagalog speaker here.Your example was nice, however using "bili" as your example might have not been the best choice because of the inherent letter i's in the word. The infix is actually "in" rather than "ni". Another example that would illustrate it better would be the verb "sulat" (meaning "to write") whose past tense is "sinulat". Or the verb meaning "to take" which is "kuha" whose past form is "kinuha".
+Jeff Bote Sometimes the data is simplified to make the process more understandable. I don't know the languages in detail myself, so I have to trust other textbook writers and linguists who provide these examples that they are accurate. So, likely this was just simplified to be a decent example explaining the process.
lol.. suspiciously funny. 'sulat' ... ~ thaw.. melt things as throw letters around..
'kuha' has lots meaning in dialect. contradictive to the suggestion it being without purpose given reason to what that so if as is. . like existence sein
I do not know what dialect you are referring to, but he specifically said Tagalog, so i responded with examples that exist in Tagalog. I know I do not speak for all Tagalog speakers out there, but since Tagalog is my L1, and I am fluent in it, I thought I might give some helpful information about it.
Sure, there may be other dialects where "kuha" and "sulat" mean different things, but the focus on my comment was the Tagalog I knew growing up.
+Jesuit Clone 31 Yes, that is true. I am currently taking linguistics, and my professors used those as examples for English albeit being iffy about it since they are words in and of themselves. They also do not serve an inflectional (grammatical) meaning like in Tagalog, or a derivational meaning as in Cebuano. In English, those are usually only used as a way to emphasize the emotion of the speaker.
your explanation is very helpful. Thank you
is there a video where you go more into detail over free morphemes (lexical and grammatical)?
Like "I" and "to" and "yesterday" are they grammatical or lexical morphemes?
hey dya have a video on bound roots? This video was very helpful so if you have a video on bound roots could you drop a link ?
Your materi is good. And you know, you use application kahoot and I like. Because application simple but interested
Does anybody knows a website that analises morphs?
One question: how do circumfixes (in English, that would be the en- / -en in 'enlighten' or em- / -en in 'embolden') function in morphological trees, such as in the one for "enlightened"? My initial thought was that it would start with the root 'light' and then progress as [ _light_ → _light_*en* → *en*_lighten_ → _enlighten_*ed* ], but now I'm wondering if it would look more like [ _light_ → *en*_light_*en* → _enlighten_*ed* ], whereby both parts of the circumfix comprise only a single branch on the tree. Any idea as to which variant is proper? Cheers~
Interesting, our professor told us that there are infixes in English e.g absofuckinglutely and self-un-loading. However, this was really helpful for my exam preparation, so thanks! :)
Yes, -fucking- and -bloody- and -frickin'- and -goddamn- are all infixes in English. They're different from the typical affixes that we normally encounter, though, so that's why I leave them out at the intro level.
the word must have at least 3 syllables. Other example: Ala-fucking-'bama
Hi there! If possible, I want you to clarify hwo the mechanism of morphology produces morphemes. Thanks in advance 🌹
For "clueless", can it be [N > clue] [Adj > less] > [Adj >clueless]?
Thank you 🙏🏾 this was very informative ❤
in the word ( sara's) - ( this is Sara's book)
does the ( 's ) count as a suffix as well?
It is called possession suffix, so yes
I am just going take his word ford it (someone said bigfoot talk has a morpheme stream) on Sasquatch Chronicles.
Please tell me about the kind of free morpheme.
You said that in "judgers"
the root word was judge but listed the three morpheme as [judge][er][s]
Wouldn't the second morpheme be [r]?
If they are the smallest unit of meaning, shouldn't they be non intersecting? The "judge" morphine and the "er" morpheme intersect.
I just watched more of the video and yeah I think I'm right
[r] is a bound morpheme
Roland Ramos is that right?how can be 😱😱😱😱😰
I don't know if it's still relevant for you, but I think "judg" can be combined to "judging," thus [judg][er][s] is okay. But the root is still "judge."
what about the word patients as the doctor patients?
For the preposition about, is correct to consider ab as a morpheme and out as another one? Thank you.
No. What would be the meaning/function of "ab"?
How do I get ahold of your quizzes/exercises?
Thank you very much you save my grade
How one can see morphology on line, is there any site...?
What about 'empowering' drawing tree
There are infixes in English, such as speed-o-meter, sister-in-law, now-a-days, all-o-phone etc
Mehmet Alperen The word "fuck" can be used as an infix as well, such as in "fan-fucking-tastic".
why can t we consider act as a morpheme in the word of deactivate?
It is a morpheme in a comment below he broke it down into de- act -ive -ate
+Daniel Yakubov
thnx Daniel :)
So an affix is just... a bound morpheme? They're the same thing?
شكرًا لك.
Define root....Is 'root' a bound morpheme? Plz reply
The root is the free morpheme because it can stand alone
Example:
Disfunction
We have the root or the free morpheme is : function
The affix which is here a prefix which is also a bound morpheme is : dis
Hope this was clear
@@AsmaaPurity Re+ceive = Receive ...but "ceive" can't stand alone....reply
@@awadhesh2270 that's a special case of words that are old from other languages
We have receive
Deceive
Conceive
Perceive...etc
I think it's just one morpheme here because a morpheme must have either of these 2 functions:
- a grammatical function
- a meaningful meaning
Receive deceive etc if they're devided won't have either one of these 2 properties
Like the world sci in science
It s taken from an other old language so in english it cannot stand alone and it has to be attached to another to form a morpheme
Was it clear?
@@AsmaaPurity great ...and thanx !!
@@awadhesh2270 welcome
had to watch this at 1.5x speed reviewing before finals lmao 😂
noob
lmao same 2x for MCAT
Sameee
isn´t tempting an adjective? -ing adjectives and -ed adjectives bored , boring? For example?
Q. What is the difference between a bound base and an affix ?:(
Isnt temp a word as well? So tempting consists of 3 morphemes doesnt it ?
While temp is a word, it is not a morpheme of meaning in this case as tempt and temp have different origins. Also temp is highly informal as it is just short for temporary.
You are a grad saver. THX
It really helps me a lot ... Thank you so much sir 🥰🥰
Hello Sir,I wanna ask you about this:How to pronounce 'little'?
Why do we consider " able" a bound morpheme, though it is a free morphene?
Isn't "-en-" or "-n-" a Infix in Blackened ??
How can I tell whether the "-er" (in "fatter") morpheme is a comparative (meaning: more fat) or an ending representing the agent of an action (meaning: someone who makes things fat, a fatter)?
(This question may seem ridiculous if you're a human, but it's not ridiculous at all when you try to program a computer to recognize morphepems and to understand human languages.)
I see that you encountered a similar problem with the "-ing" morpheme.
Interestingly, the word "vivid" itself is complex, when you analyze it in the context of Latin, where the "viv-" is the root, and "-id" is a suffix ;)
As for the repeated "tt" - is there any rule that says which letters should be repeated in this way and in what circumstances? Does it have any proper name in linguistics?
Amazing video that’s I’ve found very useful in resupplementing my knowledge. The only thing I would add is that English has one very unique infix: fuckin’/fucking and is recognised by MIT (see. 24.900 Introduction to Linguistics on Open Course Ware), as in fun-fuckin’(/g)-tastic
But "judger?" Hmmm. Not in my Apple dictionary. Overall, though, the presentation is clear and well worth looking at.
Unfortunately, dictionaries don't reflect creativity and language use too well. Great for historical reference and language learning though!
In the Philippines, those without a degree who enjoy judging others are referred to as judgers lol .
So how to identify root/base plss
*Wrong* , In 11:01 the books where book is noun and "s" is a morpheme and is not a affix it's suffixes it comes end of a word...
A suffix is a type of affix.
@@Trevtutor thanks for the reply i got it now .
Hello, is the '-ed' from a participle like 'watched' an inflexional bound morpheme? If not, how is clasified? Thank you :)
Yes. It's the past tense inflectional morpheme.
TheTrevTutor Thank you so much for answering me. I wrote that on my exam and yesterday on the revision of the exam my linguistics teacher told me it wasn't even a morpheme. I got really confused.
It's absolutely 100% a morpheme in every linguistic theory that uses the terminology "morpheme".
Although, if "watched" was used as an adjective, like, "it was a widely watched movie", then it would be a derivational morpheme, not an inflectional morpheme.
TheTrevTutor Thank you very much. Your videos are really helping understand everything better :)
Mashallah Good for learning
Nice video, very helphul!!
what will be the boundmorpheme for "Unacceptable"
it would be the prefix un cause we have the free : acceptable
@@zakariaazrir143 No, accept is the free morpheme here. -Able is a bound suffix meaning that the 'accept' is enabled, i.e. acceptable=able to be accepted.
Two bound morphemes: un and able, one free morpheme: accept.
It is a fruitful video, thank you
stfu
How about the word "animals?" is it free or bound? this word can stand alone as "animal" but it also have sufix s.
Animal is free while -s is bound. It’s a complex word.
Can someone tell me the affixes plus the root of words like "illogical" or "incredibly"?
il- ; -log- ; -ical
il-, -logical
il- ; -log- ; -ic ; -al ?
thanks!
Simon 123 I believe the affixes would be: il- , meaning NOT the root
Logic - root word
-al , being of the root
And incredibly has:
In-
Credible
-ly
How can you determine the difference between a morpheme stream and gibberish for an alien language?
You'd have to study the language first and find patterns in meaning before determining whether something has meaning or not. That's what field linguists and computational linguists are for.
Thx so much for the videos
Many thanks
Thanks so much for your help 😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍
Our professor said that infixes do exist in English as an example he said "abso-fucking-lutely", what do you think?
Yep. That's a good example of an infix in English. We can do it with some curse words, but the constraints on where we can insert it is a little too complicated at this point.
TheTrevTutor exactly! thank you for your feedback and for your explanation!
Very Helpful ! thank you :)
thanks a lot sir 😍😍😍😗😗
Hello :) i really like your video but there actually is a word with an infix in english: speedometer. speed -> free morpheme, o->infix,meter->free morpheme. Maybe you add this to your video :)
That is not an infix, because "-o-" is not a morpheme. It has no meaning, whether inflectional or derivational. It could be called a "linking vowel", motivated by phonological epenthesis to join "speed" and "meter" into one word.
Thanks a lot.
Thanks man .. You r great
Why black is not a noun?
Hello! TrevTutor:)
I am a university student learning linguistic recently ,and I personally found something hard to understnad during watching this video.
For example
Limit+ed>this not only can be past tence of the verb"Limit" but also be an adjective so it means that inflectional morphemes can also form a new word like a derivational morephemes.
What do you think about it?
Can a word be formed by removing an affix from a longer word?
Yeah. That's usually called Backformation, like Orientation -> Orientate
so clear!!!!!
How many morphemes are in the word "people"? Because person has 1 morpheme and so does many correct? But if "people" means many person, how does this work?
"people" is one morpheme. It's a free morpheme that can't be broken up.
Plz say how to morphemes using tree method
Illogical morphemes
THANK YOUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you Sir
My MA task brought me here. I noticed one room for improvement tho in this lesson. In binili (Tagalog word) since bili is the root, the infix should be “in” not “ni”.
How many morphemes does deactivate have?
de - act - ive - ate
thank god! god bless uuuu
Thank you
thank u thank u so much
Thank you ! That was very helpful
No
Thankyou 😘
excellent
How many morphemes: incompatibilities?
In-com-pati-ible-ity-s. In total, 6
***** so, how many?
Good question.
@@yaboialfyn5438 Pati doesn't mean anything in English, even though it does in Latin. Patible would be correct, though, even though that's a very unusual word, but regardless compatible is derived from that word so it is a morpheme.
It seems like ful would not be bound because it means full:
beauty-full: beautiful: full of beauty
mercy-full: merciful: full of mercy
2020 August 11 Tue 1:28
Nice.
what about lexemes 😩
INFIXES.. what do u mean none in english, sir? how about spoonsful? cupsful?
It’s a clip of “x cups full” that appears in a few American dialects of English, but it’s not the common plural. Perhaps it could be analyzed as an infix, but it’s highly restricted. Cupfuls and spoonfuls is the standard plural form.
@@Trevtutor I see. Thanks
thanks! this was very helpful
I understanded
But... Blackened is not a verb...
@@21innocentbystander It IS a verb! Go and google it!
On 'faithful', is '-ful' not a free morpheme when realised as 'full'"
-ful is not equal to the word full. It's just a suffix. It makes the noun an adjective. Case in point, rightful= right+ (-ful) doesn't mean it's full of right. It just means legitimate.
@@nefwaenre i think you are looking at it from a narrow perspective.