Talk:Morphology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quibble: In Linguistics, most linguists use morpheme to distinguish to smallest unit of "grammatical meaning." For example, in English the indication of the plural for a noun, e.g., /s/, /iz/, /&n/ etc. in "books," "stories," "oxen" are considered allomorphs of the "plural morphems." Other persist in using it to refer to the smallest unit of "meaning," alone. For example, in English, the prefixes /in/, /im/ meaning "not" in "incorrect," "impossible" are considered allomorphs of the morpheme /in/. This last approach is usually considered circular, because of the inclusion of the semantic element. Your reference to "lexeme" seems to refer to this second appproach. I think it is necessary, here, to define "lexeme." RoseParks
A lexeme is a lexical unit. Anyway, I don't think it's necessary here to say what morphology is in biology.-...---- I wasn't discussing biology, I was disputing your inclusion of any semantic element in the concept of a morpheme. By the way, your definition of lexeme is not helpful. And, please leave my transcriptions alone, or I will alter all of yours. SAMPA is not a standard. And although you don't want to impose it on anyone, you have taken a page where I have picked by method of transcription and you have altered it. Two can play. RoseParks
sorry about that... i mean if u transcribe it like that it just isn't clear what you're talking about, so i think it's necessary to include both..... ---- Forgive me, but I did not see both. That would be acceptable. Unless, I am mistaken, I saw you change the "&" which I use for schwa to "@" which SAMPA uses for schwa.
I agree with Rose, morphemes and sememes should be seperated, and also separated from lexemes. Morphemes are units of linguistic structure, not of linguistic presentation (as a lexeme is), nor of linguistic meaning (as a sememe is).
[edit] biology
The morphology (biology) page is a redirect. When I'm changing links from morphology to morphology (biology) should I be changing them all the way to avoid the redirect? I don't think so, but it's been suggested to me that this would be best. Opinions? Tedernst | Talk 18:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm the suggester. When I dab, I tend towards completing the dab by avoiding the redirect. In this case, that's a little problematic since the redirect article's name is so different than the source link. Perhaps comparative anatomy, the destination for the redirect, should be modified to mention morphology directly. Perhaps this disambig should list comparative anatomy instead of the morphology (biology) redirect. Perhaps something else? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think there should actually be an article at Morphology (biology), so I see no problem with a partial dab, since it allows you to see that "morphology" was the intention, not "comparative anatomy". Most of the things I've changed to point to Morphology (biology) would not be appropriate to link directly to Comparative anatomy since they really just meant "shape" within the context of a single organism, species, or genus. Mike Dillon 19:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think that morphology (biology) should be a redlink. This dab article can link to comparative anatomy. — goethean ॐ 15:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Common definition in text
The reason it is good to have some content on the Morphology disabiguation page is that that page is what users see when they type "morphology" in the search box. Please leave my changes intact unless you have an argument why someone who types "morphology" shouldn't see a simple definition along with the dab links. Mike Dillon 22:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Wait a minute. I asked a question in the edit summary without changing your text. Your answer to my question doesn't address the change you made. Dab pages are only supposed to have links to the pages in question, not to unrelated pages like Greek Language. I don't believe any of that initial text should be there, but I didn't change you text, only the link. Please explain on the talk:morphology page why this initial paragraph shouldn't comply with MoS:DP. Tedernst | talk 22:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- I didn't mean to say that you'd removed my text. I was responding to the edit comment that you wanted to remove the lead text. Since "morphology" is a general term with specific meanings in different fields, I think that having some content makes sense, even if it is a disambig page. However, I have removed all non-dab links from the text to be closer to MoS:DP. If a generic term has a consistent root meaning or overarching meaning, a short gloss seems helpful to me, despite what MoS:DP says. Otherwise, each article would have to explain the meaning or link to Wiktionary. Hopefully you're happy with the lead now. Mike Dillon 22:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll restate my earlier opinion on this issue that "morphology" means pretty much the same thing in all these fields: "the study of forms". It's the "forms" that are field-specific. Since editors will inevitably link to "morphology" with new meanings that are not already on the disambig page, I think the shared definition rightly belongs on the page, despite what MoS:DP says. If you look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Morphology, you'll see that there are currently links to morphology with meanings not covered by the disambig page, not meaning much more than "study of forms" or "form" (as in one of the biology senses of "morphology"). Examples are on Architectural history and Digital terrain model. Should there be Morphology (architecture) and Morphology (geology) on the disambig page? I think probably yes for the geology one, but not architecture. Then there's the link to "morphology" on Nanorod. It should probably just be removed. Mike Dillon 02:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- While I think it's fine to have this discussion here, and I will not edit the page for this issue while we're talking here, I see this as a larger dab style issue. If it's a true that a general description is helpful and useful for morphology, then it's bound to be true for countless other disambiguation pages. I'm not convinced. There's actually a whole project here at Wikipedia just fixing links to disambiguation pages. So those pages that link to Morphology, they shouldn't. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. What next? Tedernst | talk 06:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the expanded lead with the common definition used to read:
- Morphology is a term meaning "study of forms" from the Greek root word μορφή (morphe) meaning "form" or "shape". It takes on the following meanings in particular fields
It was changed back to:
- Morphology may mean
I obviously prefer the expanded version. Mike Dillon 16:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
