Formal - phonomorphemic or abstract-morphemic?

Post Reply
stephen
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed 19 Jul, 2017 5:17 am

Formal - phonomorphemic or abstract-morphemic?

Post by stephen » Thu 19 Jul, 2018 6:02 am

The morphemic significance of the morphemes or the morphophonemic similarity accross a number of grammatical categories.

Peoples using databases of abstracted grammatical categories insist on imposing ststematically abstracted categories onto the abalysis of the language, rather than euphonically or graphomorphemically similar words. That confuses the analysis of patterns in the language.

We need to appreciate how speakers, rather than modern learners of the language looks at things. Getting beyond the "grammar" is an important step. Analysis tools, which continually remind uses of the accidence, or which prompt searches based on grammar are on the whole detrimental to analysis of speech styles.

Accidence based syntactic analysis is misleading because modern analyses of accidence were not current, when the speech styles of the language were being developed and used.

1st or 2nd tenses vs. Imperfect endings.

● Similarity by abstracted categorisation of the forms.
● Similarity of forms across a range of tenses.
● Not formally similar, if formal means arrange by abstract category.

Post Reply