BIG THANKS from India! This was a lifesaver for my NLP classes. For some reason it's a labyrinthine pursuit if you search up 'lemma vs root' or 'lexeme vs root'. Found no clear-cut explanation.
And another problem is that the words blue-bird, white-house are not words consist of lexeme but are compound words. Anyone can’t see lexeme because it only exists in one’s mind but it can be represented out with a lemme, well, lexeme is an abstract concept and a lemme is the canonical realization of a lexeme by convention (eg. /run/ is lexeme and [run]^ is the lemme of the lexeme in a dictionary while[runner],[running],[runny] is the other lemme of the [run]^, they all share the same (same here refers something in common) meaning of the lexeme/run/.
"Couth" is kind of an archaic term, but it is technically a free morpheme in modern English. "Disgruntled" is a much better example, since the verb "to gruntle" was never adopted into modern English.
Hi, "activities" is built the following way: act-: root active-: stem -ity (iti): derivational (adj -> noun) -es: inflectional (changing number from singular to plural) So yes, your thought was correct. :)
Hi. Good explanation about root, stem, and word. But I would like to ask, is "another" is build up from morphemes : "an" + "other" ? Or it is a root? / a stem? Thank you
A bound morphine is a root word that cannot stand alone. It must always take a prefix or suffix. As someone else mentioned, disgruntled. Gruntled has no meaning on its own. We have to add the prefix dis- to it.
but in fact, establish is not a root according to your definition, because I can divide it further into e+stable+ish and here "e" is a slow tone, "stable" is a root and "ish" is a suffix as well as function.
曾黎俊 certainly true if we're talking diachronically (as in, the history of the word establish). If we ask a native French speaker this root could definitely be broken down as you suggest. If we're talking about how Modern English speakers use this word synchronically, though, "establish" most probably won't be seperable. For instance no English speakers would understand what you meant if you said "understablish" or something like that. Not only is that not "a word" it actually doesn't make sense. Lots of borrowed words that are morphologically complex in the original language (French in this case) are taken into new languages as monomorphic, meaning that even if a French speaker could break it down, an English speaker can't. Sometimes drawing that line between what present day English speakers can and cannot retreive is hard though. For example the french suffix -ment definitely is definitely retreivable and is analyzed by English speakers as a way to turn some verbs into nouns. One could make a good argument that -ish is another suffix English speakers can analyze as it's found on a lot of verbs (perish, vanquish, relish...) but it certainly isn't active as a way to form new words and is not anywhere near as clearly a piece of meaning as -ment
曾黎俊 certainly true if we're talking diachronically (as in, the history of the word establish). If we ask a native French speaker this root could definitely be broken down as you suggest. If we're talking about how Modern English speakers use this word synchronically, though, "establish" most probably won't be seperable. For instance no English speakers would understand what you meant if you said "understablish" or something like that. Not only is that not "a word" it actually doesn't make sense. Lots of borrowed words that are morphologically complex in the original language (French in this case) are taken into new languages as monomorphic, meaning that even if a French speaker could break it down, an English speaker can't. Sometimes drawing that line between what present day English speakers can and cannot retreive is hard though. For example the french suffix -ment definitely is definitely retreivable and is analyzed by English speakers as a way to turn some verbs into nouns. One could make a good argument that -ish is another suffix English speakers can analyze as it's found on a lot of verbs (perish, vanquish, relish...) but it certainly isn't active as a way to form new words and is not anywhere near as clearly a piece of meaning as -ment
But I can argue that the word stable is existing in English, further more, stable also can be divided into “st +able “. You definition says root is the central meaning morpheme of a word, well, “st” stands for something stable or steady very common in English, maybe it’s not a free morpheme but I can regard it as a bond morpheme, more precisely, it is a bond morpheme base if I just consider with synchronical aspect of a morpheme. What do you think?
曾黎俊 Ah yes! I see what you mean. "Stable" and "able" are words of English, but that is coincidence so far as morphology is concerned. So far as modern English speakers are concerned the meaning of the word "establish" does not involve the meanings of the words "able" or "stable" (though in it's original form the word did translate to "put in stables" in French). It feels like a lump of meaning as much as "blue" does. Establish doesn't have pieces you can pull apart like you can with the pieces of "bluebird," where both "blue" and "bird" are clearly present to any speaker.
Isabel Cooke McKay maybe bluebird involved some aspects of culture in which bluebird is a special type of robin and robin is a good bird in western culture as well as blue is good color just like color red in China representing something good although I think it is bad symbolic, so blue and bird bonded together formed bluebird that can’t be simply divided into small pieces of meaning. Anyway, if I further divide establish into smaller segments I can process this word better, so I insist on my initial view.
![[Introduction to Linguistics] Derivational and Inflectional Morphemes, and Morphological Changes](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UiYPVP9Hb7M/mqdefault.jpg)
BIG THANKS from India! This was a lifesaver for my NLP classes. For some reason it's a labyrinthine pursuit if you search up 'lemma vs root' or 'lexeme vs root'. Found no clear-cut explanation.
I was reading so many times my notes and I wasn't able to understand what is a stem. Thank you for this video
And another problem is that the words blue-bird, white-house are not words consist of lexeme but are compound words. Anyone can’t see lexeme because it only exists in one’s mind but it can be represented out with a lemme, well, lexeme is an abstract concept and a lemme is the canonical realization of a lexeme by convention (eg. /run/ is lexeme and [run]^ is the lemme of the lexeme in a dictionary while[runner],[running],[runny] is the other lemme of the [run]^, they all share the same (same here refers something in common) meaning of the lexeme/run/.
"Couth" is kind of an archaic term, but it is technically a free morpheme in modern English. "Disgruntled" is a much better example, since the verb "to gruntle" was never adopted into modern English.
Hi Isabel, thank you for the video, I have the word act- iv- iti- es, act is root, iv-iti are derivational aff. -es is inflexional, right?
Hi, "activities" is built the following way:
act-: root
active-: stem
-ity (iti): derivational (adj -> noun)
-es: inflectional (changing number from singular to plural)
So yes, your thought was correct. :)
Very well explained, thank you.
Hi. Good explanation about root, stem, and word. But I would like to ask, is "another" is build up from morphemes : "an" + "other" ? Or it is a root? / a stem? Thank you
Thanks for making this video. This is really helpful
i'm unable to understand bound roots, if you've made a longer video upon that could you drop a link please? Also this video was helpful thanks
A bound morphine is a root word that cannot stand alone. It must always take a prefix or suffix. As someone else mentioned, disgruntled. Gruntled has no meaning on its own. We have to add the prefix dis- to it.
i have understood you about stem and root bat base is not described by please try to tell us
What is the difference between root and free morpheme
Are lexemes and lexical words synonymous?
awesome explaination
You hold the marker just like I do and it's exhausting for me lol
thank god for you video.
Thank you so much !
please, can you enlarge the front , in the next time ?
I liked ur video .Can u tell me how can I get the stem and root from that word (disbelievement? )
Very helpful! Thank you.
I didn't understand, what is the meaning of stem
I also
Whatever before the existence of inflectional morpheme is the stem
Good job. Thank you so much.
Not clear AT ALL.
but in fact, establish is not a root according to your definition, because I can divide it further into e+stable+ish and here "e" is a slow tone, "stable" is a root and "ish" is a suffix as well as function.
曾黎俊 certainly true if we're talking diachronically (as in, the history of the word establish). If we ask a native French speaker this root could definitely be broken down as you suggest. If we're talking about how Modern English speakers use this word synchronically, though, "establish" most probably won't be seperable. For instance no English speakers would understand what you meant if you said "understablish" or something like that. Not only is that not "a word" it actually doesn't make sense.
Lots of borrowed words that are morphologically complex in the original language (French in this case) are taken into new languages as monomorphic, meaning that even if a French speaker could break it down, an English speaker can't. Sometimes drawing that line between what present day English speakers can and cannot retreive is hard though. For example the french suffix -ment definitely is definitely retreivable and is analyzed by English speakers as a way to turn some verbs into nouns. One could make a good argument that -ish is another suffix English speakers can analyze as it's found on a lot of verbs (perish, vanquish, relish...) but it certainly isn't active as a way to form new words and is not anywhere near as clearly a piece of meaning as -ment
曾黎俊 certainly true if we're talking diachronically (as in, the history of the word establish). If we ask a native French speaker this root could definitely be broken down as you suggest. If we're talking about how Modern English speakers use this word synchronically, though, "establish" most probably won't be seperable. For instance no English speakers would understand what you meant if you said "understablish" or something like that. Not only is that not "a word" it actually doesn't make sense.
Lots of borrowed words that are morphologically complex in the original language (French in this case) are taken into new languages as monomorphic, meaning that even if a French speaker could break it down, an English speaker can't. Sometimes drawing that line between what present day English speakers can and cannot retreive is hard though. For example the french suffix -ment definitely is definitely retreivable and is analyzed by English speakers as a way to turn some verbs into nouns. One could make a good argument that -ish is another suffix English speakers can analyze as it's found on a lot of verbs (perish, vanquish, relish...) but it certainly isn't active as a way to form new words and is not anywhere near as clearly a piece of meaning as -ment
But I can argue that the word stable is existing in English, further more, stable also can be divided into “st +able “. You definition says root is the central meaning morpheme of a word, well, “st” stands for something stable or steady very common in English, maybe it’s not a free morpheme but I can regard it as a bond morpheme, more precisely, it is a bond morpheme base if I just consider with synchronical aspect of a morpheme. What do you think?
曾黎俊 Ah yes! I see what you mean. "Stable" and "able" are words of English, but that is coincidence so far as morphology is concerned. So far as modern English speakers are concerned the meaning of the word "establish" does not involve the meanings of the words "able" or "stable" (though in it's original form the word did translate to "put in stables" in French). It feels like a lump of meaning as much as "blue" does. Establish doesn't have pieces you can pull apart like you can with the pieces of "bluebird," where both "blue" and "bird" are clearly present to any speaker.
Isabel Cooke McKay maybe bluebird involved some aspects of culture in which bluebird is a special type of robin and robin is a good bird in western culture as well as blue is good color just like color red in China representing something good although I think it is bad symbolic, so blue and bird bonded together formed bluebird that can’t be simply divided into small pieces of meaning. Anyway, if I further divide establish into smaller segments I can process this word better, so I insist on my initial view.
You explained lexeme wrongly