Différences

Cette page vous donne les différences entre la révision choisie et la version actuelle de la page.

dictionnaire:the_morphology_of_classical_latin1 [2015/10/24 12:02]
ollivier
dictionnaire:the_morphology_of_classical_latin1 [2016/01/27 17:48] (Version actuelle)
ollivier
Ligne 29: Ligne 29:
  
  
-    * Frawley, 2003, p. 82 ((International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Oxford, vol. 3))//Traditionally, morphology includes both the study of grammatical forms a word may take: // inflection//, as in Eng. // form, form-s, form-ed,// and // word formation//, the lexical relationship between words of the same family, in terms of either // derivational morphology// (as in // form-ation, form-al//), or // compoundin//g (as in // cunei-form, word form//)// +    * Frawley, 2003, p. 82 ((International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Oxford, vol. 3))//Traditionally, morphology includes both the study of grammatical forms a word may take: //  inflection//, as in Eng. //  form, form-s, form-ed,// and //  word formation//, the lexical relationship between words of the same family, in terms of either //  derivational morphology// (as in //  form-ation, form-al//), or //  compoundin//g (as in //  cunei-form, word form//)// 
  
  
Ligne 35: Ligne 35:
  
  
-    * Bloomfield p. 207((Cf. Touratier, « Système des consonnes », 2005, 118-119. Alvarez Heurta, « Neutralisation consonantique en latin », 2005, 146-147, Language, London, George Allen & Unwin, 566 p.))//We may say that morphology includes the constructions of words and parts of words, while syntax includes the constructions of phrases.// +    * Bloomfield p. 207((Cf. Touratier, 2005, « Système des consonnes »,p.118-119. Alvarez Heurta, 2005, « Neutralisation consonantique en latin », p.146-147, //Language//, London, George Allen & Unwin, 566 p.))//We may say that morphology includes the constructions of words and parts of words, while syntax includes the constructions of phrases.// 
  
  
Ligne 41: Ligne 41:
  
  
-Ernout, in the first part of his //Morphologie//, studies Latin declension (//i.e//. the forms of every case of every declension) and, in the second part, Latin conjugation (//i.e.//  the forms of the tense affixes and the verbal stem of the //infectum//, which corresponds to the four conjugations of the grammatical tradition, and the formal features of the //perfectum//  that do not correspond to these conjugations, but depend on the consonant or vocalic nature of the stem), and he ends his book with a very complete three-column index of all the studied words (p. 235-252). On the other hand in the first part of his //Syntaxe//, he studies the role and function in the sentence of the cases and prepositions, in the second part, the simple sentence and its constituents, and in the third part, the two means used to create a complex sentence: subordination, by which a sentence is inserted as a constituent of another sentence, and coordination, by which the constituents of a sentence can be multiplied.+Ernout, in the first part of his //Morphologie//, studies Latin declension (//i.e//. the forms of every case of every declension) and, in the second part, Latin conjugation (//i.e.//   the forms of the tense affixes and the verbal stem of the //infectum//, which corresponds to the four conjugations of the grammatical tradition, and the formal features of the //perfectum//   that do not correspond to these conjugations, but depend on the consonant or vocalic nature of the stem), and he ends his book with a very complete three-column index of all the studied words (p. 235-252). On the other hand in the first part of his //Syntaxe//, he studies the role and function in the sentence of the cases and prepositions, in the second part, the simple sentence and its constituents, and in the third part, the two means used to create a complex sentence: subordination, by which a sentence is inserted as a constituent of another sentence, and coordination, by which the constituents of a sentence can be multiplied.
  
  
Ligne 47: Ligne 47:
  
  
-**Charles Hockett’s point of view**  : In his //Course in Modern Linguistics//, Hockett defines morphemes as+**Charles Hockett’s point of view**   : In his //Course in Modern Linguistics//, Hockett defines morphemes as
  
  
Ligne 62: Ligne 62:
  
  
-    * //(1) John /ǰán/ //  +    * //(1) John /ǰán/ // 
-    * //(2) treat /tríjt/ //  +    * //(2) treat /tríjt/ // 
-    * //((The Descriptive Analysis of Words)) –s /s/ //  +    * //(3) –s /s/ // 
-    * // ((Cf. Touratier, 1994, « Quelques problèmes de phonologie à propos de -i- », in :  Mélanges François Kerlouégan , p. 627.)) hi- /i/ //  +    * //(4) hi- /i/ // 
-    * //((Cf. Touratier, « Système des consonnes », 2005, p. 118-119. Alvarez Heurta, « Neutralisation consonantique en latin », 2005, 146-147.)) –s /z/ //  +    * //(5) –s /z/ // 
-    * // (6) old- /ówld/ //  +    * //(6) old- /ówld/ // 
-    * //(7) –er /ǝr/ //  +    * //(7) –er /ǝr/ // 
-    * //(8) sister /sístǝr/ //  +    * //(8) sister /sístǝr/ // 
-    * //(9) –s /z/ //  +    * //(9) –s /z/ // 
-    * //(10) very /vérij/ //  +    * //(10) very /vérij/ // 
-    * //(11) nice /nájs/ //  +    * //(11) nice /nájs/ // 
-    * //(12) -ly/lij/ //  +    * //(12) -ly/lij/ // 
-    * // (13) /<sup>3 2 2 2</sup>/ // +    * //(13) /<sup>3 2 2 2</sup>/ // 
 He makes the three following remarks He makes the three following remarks
  
  
-    * Bloomfield, 1958, p. 126: //First, intonation must not be overlooked; we have taken it as a single separate morpheme.// \\  //Second, (5) and (9) are phonemically the same, but certainly not the same morpheme, because of the difference in meaning.// \\  //Third, the breakdown of // his// into // hi-// /i/ and //-s// /z/ may seem unconvincing. The /z/ recurs, with exactly the same meaning, in John’s book, // the men’s room, and the like//. But the /i/ recurs only in // him// (as in // hit‘im//.)// +    * Bloomfield, 1958, p. 126: //First, intonation must not be overlooked; we have taken it as a single separate morpheme.// \\  //Second, (5) and (9) are phonemically the same, but certainly not the same morpheme, because of the difference in meaning.// \\  //Third, the breakdown of //  his// into //  hi-// /i/ and //-s// /z/ may seem unconvincing. The /z/ recurs, with exactly the same meaning, in John’s book, //  the men’s room, and the like//. But the /i/ recurs only in //  him// (as in //  hit‘im//.)// 
  
  
Ligne 108: Ligne 108:
  
  
-**Eugene Nida’s point of view**  : Nida defines morphology as+**Eugene Nida’s point of view**   : Nida((E.Nida, 1965, //Morphology. The Descriptive Analysis of Words//,  University of Michigan Press.))  defines morphology as
  
  
-    * Nida, p.1<sup>((3)))</sup>: //the study of morphemes and their arrangements in forming words,// +    * Nida, p.1: //the study of morphemes and their arrangements in forming words,// 
  
  
Ligne 126: Ligne 126:
  
     * //in a few instances it seems almost impossible to draw a line between word structure and phrase structure.//      * //in a few instances it seems almost impossible to draw a line between word structure and phrase structure.// 
-**But what does “the study of morphemes” mean?**  Is it the analysis of words into morphemes, as the subtitle of Nida’s book, The Descriptive Analysis of// // Words suggests? Does morphology consist in identifying and classifying morphemes? This would rather be a matter of morphemics. In an article //Morpheme//  in the //International//  //Encyclopedia of Linguistics,//  Peter H. Matthews says that+**But what does “the study of morphemes” mean?**   Is it the analysis of words into morphemes, as the subtitle of Nida’s book, //The Descriptive Analysis of Words//  suggests? Does morphology consist in identifying and classifying morphemes? This would rather be a matter of morphemics. In an article //Morpheme//   in the //International//   //Encyclopedia of Linguistics,//   Peter H. Matthews says that
  
  
-    * Peter H. Matthews, 2003<sup>((4)))</sup>, vol. 3, p. 81: //In some treatments of morphology, words are analyzed into basics units called morphemes, and the process is called morphemic//.+    * Peter H. Matthews((H. Mattheews, 2003<sup>2</sup>, article Morpheme in the //International Encyclopedia of Linguistics//, vol. 3,)), p. 81: //In some treatments of morphology, words are analyzed into basics units called morphemes, and the process is called morphemic//.
  
  
-**What is morphology, then?**  Martinet, who defines the linguistic sign as the association between a signified, i.e//.//  its meaning or value, and a signifier, that expresses it, and calls the minimal signs monemes, suggests a very interesting definition of morphology:+**What is morphology, then?**   Martinet, who defines the linguistic sign as the association between a signified, i.e//.//   its meaning or value, and a signifier, that expresses it, and calls the minimal signs monemes, suggests a very interesting definition of morphology:
  
  
-    * Martinet, 1996<sup>((5)))</sup>, p. 106: //The study of the alternations of a signifier is the concern of morphology. In the traditional framework of the word or the observation of // monemes//, morphology doesn’t boil down to the enumeration of all the grammatical monemes in a given context: the morphology of invariable grammatical Fr. // //pour// // [Engl. prep. // //for// //] has no relevance, whereas the lexeme // //all(er//)// [Engl. verb // //g//o//]//,// with its allomorphs /al-/, /va/, /i-/, /aj/, is a central concern of morphology.// +    * Martinet, 1996((Cf. Touratier, 1994, « Quelques problèmes de phonologie à propos de -i- », in : //Mélanges François Kerlouégan//, p. 627.)), p. 106: //The study of the alternations of a signifier is the concern of morphology. In the traditional framework of the word or the observation of //  monemes//, morphology doesn’t boil down to the enumeration of all the grammatical monemes in a given context: the morphology of invariable grammatical Fr. // //pour// // [Engl. prep. // //for// //] has no relevance, whereas the lexeme // //all(er//)// [Engl. verb // //g//o//]//,// with its allomorphs /al-/, /va/, /i-/, /aj/, is a central concern of morphology.// 
  
  
Ligne 150: Ligne 150:
  
  
-**Analysis of Latin into morphemes**  : Is the morpheme truly a minimal unit of linguistic analysis? In the first sentence of+**Analysis of Latin into morphemes**   : Is the morpheme truly a minimal unit of linguistic analysis? In the first sentence of
  
  
Ligne 173: Ligne 173:
     * //caelum /uentum//, the Heavens / the wind     * //caelum /uentum//, the Heavens / the wind
     * //terram / aquam//, the Earth /the water.     * //terram / aquam//, the Earth /the water.
-These commutations clearly show that only the segment principi//-//  means “beginning”, as only crea//-, // de­//-, // cael//-//  and terr//-//  mean respectively “create”, “God”, “Heavens” and “Earth”. But these segments never appear alone and therefore do not exist independently in the Latin language. They are always accompanied by a final affix which is //-// am or //-// a//,//  – for the morpheme terr//-//, as the second sentence of this example shows:+These commutations clearly show that only the segment principi//-//   means “beginning”, as only crea//-, //  de­//-, //  cael//-//   and terr//-//   mean respectively “create”, “God”, “Heavens” and “Earth”. But these segments never appear alone and therefore do not exist independently in the Latin language. They are always accompanied by a final affix which is //-//  am or //-//  a//,//   – for the morpheme terr//-//, as the second sentence of this example shows:
  
  
Ligne 183: Ligne 183:
  
  
-or other forms like //-// ae//, -// ā//, -// ārum//, -// ās or //-// īs. The group of these final affixes as a whole constitutes what grammars call the first declination of the nouns. But what are these affixes? Are they morphemes? If, by signified, we understand grammatical value as well as meaning of a morpheme, we can say that the segment /-am/, which combines with the morpheme /terr-/, shows that this morpheme is the object complement of the verb //created//, as well as the segment /-um/, which combines with the morpheme /cael-/, and the segment /-us/, which combines with the morpheme /de-/, shows that it is subject of the verb //created//, as well as the segment /-a/ combined with /terr-/ in the second sentence of our example is the subject of verb //erat//. Therefore these segments, which have a signified, are morphemes, though they cannot commute in these examples. But there are some examples in which the commutation is perfectly possible, as in: +or other forms like //-//  ae//, -//  ā//, -//  ārum//, -//  ās or //-//  īs. The group of these final affixes as a whole constitutes what grammars call the first declination of the nouns. But what are these affixes? Are they morphemes? If, by signified, we understand grammatical value as well as meaning of a morpheme, we can say that the segment /-am/, which combines with the morpheme /terr-/, shows that this morpheme is the object complement of the verb //created//, as well as the segment /-um/, which combines with the morpheme /cael-/, and the segment /-us/, which combines with the morpheme /de-/, shows that it is subject of the verb //created//, as well as the segment /-a/ combined with /terr-/ in the second sentence of our example is the subject of verb //erat//. Therefore these segments, which have a signified, are morphemes, though they cannot commute in these examples. But there are some examples in which the commutation is perfectly possible, as in: 
-    * //Domin-us liberauit//  (or //occupauit//)//terr-am//  / the Lord liberated (occupied) the earth  / //Domin-um liberauit//  (or //occupauit//) //terr-a//, the earth liberated (occupied) the Lord.+    * //Domin-us liberauit//   (or //occupauit//)//terr-am//   / the Lord liberated (occupied) the earth  / //Domin-um liberauit//   (or //occupauit//) //terr-a//, the earth liberated (occupied) the Lord.
 But there are also many examples where the cases cannot be morphemes, but are only a part of a discontinuous morpheme, as in prepositional phrases But there are also many examples where the cases cannot be morphemes, but are only a part of a discontinuous morpheme, as in prepositional phrases
  
Ligne 196: Ligne 196:
  
  
-If we examine the things more accurately, the difference is not so great between these morphological units and the signifier of morphemes, because the signifiers of morpheme can become any simple part of a signifier, as in the compound words that Danièle Corbin calls “complex words no constructed”, like fr. //carpette//, which doesn’t correspond to “little carp“, but means “rug”, or //chaise//-//longue//  “deck chair” and //chaise//  //électrique//  “ electric chair”, which are not strictly speaking chairs. These compound words are simple morphemes the meaning of which is independent from the meaning of the morphological segments that constitute it.+If we examine the things more accurately, the difference is not so great between these morphological units and the signifier of morphemes, because the signifiers of morpheme can become any simple part of a signifier, as in the compound words that Danièle Corbin calls “complex words no constructed”, like fr. //carpette//, which doesn’t correspond to “little carp“, but means “rug”, or //chaise//-//longue//   “deck chair” and //chaise//   //électrique//   “ electric chair”, which are not strictly speaking chairs. These compound words are simple morphemes the meaning of which is independent from the meaning of the morphological segments that constitute it. 
 + 
 + 
 +\\  
 +\\  
 +\\  
 +  
 + 
 +\\ 
 +[[:encyclopédie_linguistique:notions_linguistiques:morphologie:The morphology_of_classical Latin|Retour au plan]] ou  
 +[[:dictionnaire: The morphology of classical latin2|Aller au § 2.]] 
 +