Différences

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

dictionnaire:the_morphology_of_classical_latin1 [2016/01/27 15:21]
ollivier
dictionnaire:the_morphology_of_classical_latin1 [2016/01/27 17:48] (Version actuelle)
ollivier
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 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><sup>((6)))</sup>)</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><sup>((7)))</sup>)</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//.
  
  
Ligne 135: Ligne 135:
  
  
-    * Martinet, 1996<sup><sup>((8)))</sup>)</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 197: Ligne 197:
  
 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.]]
 +
 +