Talk:Morphophonology

Name

I seriously doubt that 'morphonology' is an acceptable alternative to 'morphophonology' 132.229.191.111 08:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Look it up on Google Books. — kwami (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

On a different note, it's frustrating when you've spent your entire undergraduate career having majored in linguistics, and having graduated, only to read an article such as this one and fail to understand it because of its writing style. Brandon1978 (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

On the previous note, I had the exact same reaction to 'morphonology' as Mr. 132.229.191.111. My first instinct was to label it [dubious], but apparently we have some unknown google books page (???) to back this up.

And on your note, I think I improved the intro a bit (pretty much prettified the brief weird vague definition thing and bullet points and elaborated a bit). Hey man, if you have a bachelor's in linguistics, maybe you can help us make this sorry driveling article a bit better.

Also, how about Morphophonemics for the main title of this page? True (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

English examples

Aren't a/an, the/"thee" and to/"too" also examples? A book, an apple. The book, "thee" apple. To ("t'") go, to ("too") ask. --Kjoonlee 07:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

All illustrate the point. However, orthographically a/an is simply phonemic (or at least as close to phonemic as you can get with English), since the "underlying" form is not written, while the, etc. are orthographically morphophonemic. kwami (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is an alternation in the morpheme "a/an." It could be said that the UR is /æ/, with the rule /æ/ -> [æn] /__[vowel]. Because this doesn't happen with the phoneme æ everywhere, it's shown that this is actually a property of the morpheme "a/an." That's a morphophonemic alternation if I ever seen one. Um, and as for the/thee and to/too? Those are just random homophones, guys. They don't have any morphological relationship. True (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the IPA examples be in square brackets instead of between slashes? They're phonetics, not phonemics, as far as I can see - and the plural morpheme is to the best of my knowledge always expressed by the phoneme /s/, which can be realised as both [s] and [z]. 80.167.153.43 (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a plural morpheme, not a plural phoneme. The plural morpho-phoneme is //z// (or //s//, if you prefer). It is realized as one of two phonemes, /s/ after voiceless sounds, and /z/ elsewhere. /s/ and /z/ are separate phonemes in English; they aren't allophones as [s] and [z] are in Spanish. Those phonemes will in turn be realized as different allophones: the /s/ after /k/ is slightly different than the /s/ after /t/. — kwami (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)