Talk:Morphophonology

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Al90Lopez. Peer reviewers: Al90Lopez.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): IrbisM. Peer reviewers: Kiaraaguilar, Abc 49, Thomas J. Trommald, Dlarez.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ejt41892.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

Copyright issue
Most of the body of this article (the "Morphophonemic Analysis" section) seems to come word for word from Hayes' book. It also seems to be too detailed and "methodological" for an encyclopedia entry. Suggest we rewrite it, and also try to incorporate other approaches than just this one.--Victor Yus (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate claims
There is a claim on the main page that the IPA uses Pipes, I marked this as needing and inline citation. This is in addition to the large banner over the article indicating a need for more inline citations. Frankly I have looked through the handbook of the IPA and find no references to the IPA using pipes <||>. I have seen this notation before, I acknowledge that it exists. However, I do not think the source is actually the IPA. I am open to discussion on this and hopefully someone can provide a citation. But in the interest of accuracy This claim needs to be removed, unless proven otherwise.

From main page: "In the International Phonetic Alphabet, pipes (| |) are often used to indicate a morphophonemic rather than phonemic representation. Another common convention is double slashes (// //), as above, implying that the transcription is 'more phonemic than simply phonemic'. Other conventions sometimes seen are double pipes (|| ||) and curly brackets ({ })."

Hugh Paterson III (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Roots
Hey y'all, I am trying to understand what morphophonology entails its fullness. Part of the article says this "when morphemes combine, they influence each other's sound structure (whether analyzed at a phonetic or phonemic level), resulting in different variant pronunciations for the same morpheme". So the differences in pronunciation of the root "photo" in these four words is something that morphophonology deals with, correct? : [fowɾow], [fowɾəgɹæf], [fətɑgɹəfi], [fowtɑn]?

If so, I think this example could be useful to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HTK91 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 2017 November 8 (UTC)

Why not category morphology and phonology
Why were the two categories, morphology and phonology, erased? Is it because morphophonology already includes the two?

But then when looking for articles on morphology I won't find morphophonolgy itself, which is definately an article of those two broader topics. No? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)