Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word
User talk:Msh210/Archive/descendant categories. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
User talk:Msh210/Archive/descendant categories, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
User talk:Msh210/Archive/descendant categories in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
User talk:Msh210/Archive/descendant categories you have here. The definition of the word
User talk:Msh210/Archive/descendant categories will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
User talk:Msh210/Archive/descendant categories, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
This page is an archive of old discussion. Please don't edit this page. If you wish to communicate with me (msh210), you can do so at User talk:Msh210. Thanks!
I have prepared a first draft of a morpheme-presentation and -autocategorization template, {{morph}}. It is probably botched in its treatment of he|yi and lacks the categorization of the second morpheme, but its use is illustrated at referentiality. Like confix, from which this is derived, it is limited to three arguments. A variant (or a called subtemplate?), capable of handling more morphemes, at least six for normal English, more for Joycean terms, would be desirable.
It is intended to facilitate the separation of morphology (aka "synchronic etymology") and etymology (aka "diachronic etymology") and complements DoremitzWR's ideas at WT:BP.
Please tell me what you think and fix what needs fixing. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
- Hey, I've been away a little. It looks like this template has been worked on quite a bit since you've posted this request, which is therefore no longer relevant. Right? Thanks for seeking my input, though. — This comment was unsigned.
- Hope you're relaxed.
- I'm working up the courage and energy to present a proposal about the presentation of etymology, especially historical and morphological etymology using auocategorizing templates like,
{{prefix}}, {{suffix}}, {{confix}}, and {{derv}} which requires some resolution of the confounding of historical and morphological derivation that now characterizes our Etymology section. Part of the problem is that different languages are at different levels of readiness for presenting etymology information of the two kinds. A bigger problem is that autocategorizing requires the creation of a lot of categories, even for a deployment limited to derivations within English. And the category-naming convention should be consistent with all-language deployment. DCDuring TALK 22:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
- I've seen recent talk about categorizing by etymon, and don't quite see the point for the rarer etyma. As I mentioned elsewhere (though I'm darned if I know where now), how many descendants in English are there of Middle English withdrawen (verb)? Presumable just withdraw. Do we need or want an "English descendants of Middle English withdrawen" category? I say absolutely not. (OTOH, do we need or want an "English descendants of Latin canere/cano" category? That, yes, or at least maybe.) I am very much in favor of clearly marking morphological (or whatever it's called) etymology, where we have it, as such.—msh210℠ 15:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply