Talk:Morphology (linguistics)/Archive 2

me not understand
Just wanted to note that after reading the introduction of this article, I have less of a clue what morphology as linguistic concept is about, then before.

I actually undertand the word "morphology" as such. But this article is about the morphology of what exactly? And how does this type of morphology relate to basic linguistic concepts such as "syntax" or "grammar"?

I'm not asking for answers here (this not being a Q&A forum) but suggest to consider these remarks during a next edit.

Igor (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Morphology (linguistics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150428013615/http://www.brill.nl/Default.aspx?partid=75&pid=9506 to http://www.brill.nl/Default.aspx?partid=75&pid=9506

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This article seems rather unpolished
Having reviewed this, it appears as though the page was written at different and times and with little to no cohesion. For instance, the lead in, introduction paragraph is one of the longest portions of the article, but many following sections are brief in ways that the introduction has the potential to be. There is also a distinct lack of clarification of key terms; "morpheme" is not used until the second intro paragraph, and is not defined prior or subsequent to its use. Definitions and clarifications for key terms in several sections, such as the "Prosodic word v. morphological word" section are not provided.

Content-wise, I would like more information on the origin and history of morphology. Why did August Schleicher decided to name and identify this branch of linguistics? Have no major strides or redefinitions been made since 1859?

Construction-wise, where are all of the sources? Entire sections are uncited, and half of my read consisted of going through and asking for citations, a request I may fill at a later date. Dnoelglenn (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Class assignment
For citation 6 in the article when you click it almost no information pops up, was this intentional or a mistake?

What is the root word of morphology and where did it come from? Casimpson4 (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Class Assignment
Overall the information was very thorough and it was an interesting read, but it lacked cohesion in some spots. Also, in the section discussing "prosodic vs. morphological", I may have missed it but it seems to have neglected describing what "prosodic" means and how it relates to the subject of morphology. There were many sources cited but for the amount of information given, a few more might be even better. Interesting read, however! I liked the layout of the subject. --Sakuragalaxxy (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, especially with the point about defining prosody before discussing morphology vs. prosody. I think that’s another example of a general issue with the current article, it needs to consider that many readers won’t be familiar with common linguistic concepts and should have some intro text that describes the basics before diving into the details, see my other two comments below. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation- Violet Walle
There is a lot of information in this article that has been cited with an appropriate and reliable reference, many of the sources are dated from 2010- 2016, however there are sources that are older and need to be replaced with a more recent source. There is a lot of information (multiple paragraphs) that have not been given citations at all, and information should not be given without citing an appropriate and reliable reference. The information presented is relevant to the topic of the article, unbiased, presented in a clear and consistent manner, and most of the sources are reliable and credible. The links appear to be working; they transport the reader to the desired location. Overall, the article is a good source for people who would like to learn about Morphology. In order to strengthen this article, some of the references need to be updated, and all information presented must be cited with an appropriate and reliable reference.

Violet Walle Vmwalle (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree and also think the article could be improved by considering that many users aren’t going to be linguists, I.e., have some more basic discussion and examples before diving into obscure languages and complex issues. See my other comment below. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Morphology (linguistics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706160604/http://www.revel.inf.br/site2007/_pdf/14/entrevistas/revel_12_interview_aronoff.pdf to http://www.revel.inf.br/site2007/_pdf/14/entrevistas/revel_12_interview_aronoff.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925075737/http://www.sultry.arts.usyd.edu.au/LFG98/austro/foley/frames/foley4.htm to http://www.sultry.arts.usyd.edu.au/LFG98/austro/foley/frames/foley4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Morpheme vs. phoneme
I think this article could be improved by having some early (probably in the intro section) discussion of the difference between a morpheme and a phoneme. As it is now it starts talking about “phonological ... modifications” in the third paragraph but without first describing what a phoneme or phonology is. Also, I think the article could be improved by starting with some examples from English first. As it is now the first examples discussed are from a very obscure language called Kwak'wala. It’s good to have these non English examples as well but first starting with the language that all users are familiar with would IMO be much better and make this complex topic more understandable to non linguists. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Class Assignment: More Conciseness
Individual sections in the article seem to be well written, but there is no cohesiveness/conciseness in this article. The ideas seem to be very split apart from each other, and tend to stray away from what morphology actually is. A main issue I see is too many examples of different languages. This seems to split up morphology among the different languages in this article, which can be confusing. Given that the article is about morphology, it would be beneficial to focus on morphology as a whole, rather than individual types that lie within many different languages.

Could focusing on what morphology is as a whole would be the best option? Could sticking to one language, like English, can help with the confusion? Jtbuffit (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age
— Assignment last updated by Hoorarizona (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Examples section
There is a portion in the examples that could (and probably should be ) added on. In the additional readings from this would be a great reference to use for the example section just to add on to it. Otherwise this additional reading doesn't really apply the rest of the article.

Dead link reference 3
Sorry I don't wiki really, just found a dead link in the 3rd reference and wanted to point it out for someone who knows how to fix it. 2600:1700:7400:C930:ACE6:821A:DF19:141B (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. I've added a link to an archived URL. Mind  matrix  12:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)