English Department

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Hello

i want some help regarding morphemes and morphology. i think understand it but im not so sure putting them right in a sentence i have to. or that theres something missing

anyone there? :hiding:

Thanks

I'm in a bit of a hurry today, so it's just links, I'm afraid. First some definitions, though:

The suffix "morph-" is to do with shape, and morphology concerns the form and shape of words. It is an important aspect of grammar (along with syntax); morphology is the study of the way words are formed. The smallest part of a word that can exist alone or which can change a word's meaning or function is called a morpheme (e.g. un-, happy, -ness).

A bound morpheme is an affix, i.e. usually a prefix or a suffix, e.g. un-, -tion. These are 'bound' called because they must be attached to another morpheme to create a word. Morphemes that can exist alone as a complete word are called free morphemes, e.g. happy.

Have a look at these as well:

A Basic Guide to the Structure of English

Morphology (from wikipedia)

Morphology Resources

I hope you find these useful.

Peace

 

[S_87]

Thanks! they were useful.

When you do have time can i send you some stuff to check up and see if im putting words and sorting out the morphemes correctly?

 

[Ali.]

Hi czgibson,

I need your help defining something if you don't mind me asking; my English teacher has set us an essay to write and given us three optional titles to choose from, one of them I don't quite fully understand; could you help me?

Before I give you the essay title, the essay is on The Truman Show (a film, ever seen it?), directed by Peter Weir.
The essay title is as follows:

Peter Weir uses sophisticated technology as a juxtaposition with the naturalness of Truman Burbanks character. Discuss how and why he does this.

Now I understand from what I have found out, juxtaposition is the positioning of two (or more?) things of unequal importance side by side. The essay title still confuses me, though. Could you please define the title for me the best you can, and if you have seen the film give some examples. I would really appreciate it if you would help me.

Thanks in advance.


If anyone else knows the answer to my question, don't hesitate to answer.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Thanks! they were useful.

You're welcome.

When you do have time can i send you some stuff to check up and see if im putting words and sorting out the morphemes correctly?

I'll have a look, but I can't promise a speedy response for a little while.

I need your help defining something if you don't mind me asking; my English teacher has set us an essay to write and given us three optional titles to choose from, one of them I don't quite fully understand; could you help me?

Before I give you the essay title, the essay is on The Truman Show (a film, ever seen it?), directed by Peter Weir.
The essay title is as follows:

Peter Weir uses sophisticated technology as a juxtaposition with the naturalness of Truman Burbanks character. Discuss how and why he does this.

Now I understand from what I have found out, juxtaposition is the positioning of two (or more?) things of unequal importance side by side. The essay title still confuses me, though. Could you please define the title for me the best you can, and if you have seen the film give some examples. I would really appreciate it if you would help me.

Thanks in advance.

Hi there,

I saw 'The Truman Show' quite a while ago so I can't give specific examples unfortunately, but I can guess at some of the ideas the essay title is suggesting. I'm not sure I can improve on your definition very much, except to say that it is very often two things that are juxtaposed, although it's possible to juxtapose many things, as in this collage by Kurt Schwitters:

(Just thought I'd share that with you. :statisfie)



However, it's difficult for me to say too much without 'giving the game away', so to speak. After all, your teacher is interested in what you think, not what I think.

You could try thinking of the title in this way:

Write 'sophisticated technology' on the left-hand side of a page and 'naturalness' on the other, and then try to create two columns filled with words you associate with each of them. Once you have all of those ideas facing each other on the page, the sorts of points the director wants to make should become clearer to you. Here are a couple of ideas to start you off:



Sophisticated technology - new, powerful, cutting edge, public media

Naturalness - old, vulnerable, traditional, private life




The ideas in each list are often direct opposites of each other, and we call these binary oppositions. They are often juxtaposed in order to make particular points, as Peter Weir does in the film. You can find out more about binary oppositions here. The writer refers, to "the text" frequently, so remember that a film is an example of a type of text.

I hope that's useful - good luck!

Peace

 

[Ali.]

Greetings,


You're welcome.



I'll have a look, but I can't promise a speedy response for a little while.


Hi there,

I saw 'The Truman Show' quite a while ago so I can't give specific examples unfortunately, but I can guess at some of the ideas the essay title is suggesting. I'm not sure I can improve on your definition very much, except to say that it is very often two things that are juxtaposed, although it's possible to juxtapose many things, as in this collage by Kurt Schwitters:

(Just thought I'd share that with you. :statisfie)



However, it's difficult for me to say too much without 'giving the game away', so to speak. After all, your teacher is interested in what you think, not what I think.

You could try thinking of the title in this way:

Write 'sophisticated technology' on the left-hand side of a page and 'naturalness' on the other, and then try to create two columns filled with words you associate with each of them. Once you have all of those ideas facing each other on the page, the sorts of points the director wants to make should become clearer to you. Here are a couple of ideas to start you off:



Sophisticated technology - new, powerful, cutting edge, public media

Naturalness - old, vulnerable, traditional, private life




The ideas in each list are often direct opposites of each other, and we call these binary oppositions. They are often juxtaposed in order to make particular points, as Peter Weir does in the film. You can find out more about binary oppositions here. The writer refers, to "the text" frequently, so remember that a film is an example of a type of text.

I hope that's useful - good luck!

Peace

Hi again,

Interesting collage :hmm: kay:

Thanks a lot for the binary opposition stuff and the examples - it's helped!

Although I am still confused; Peter Weir uses sophisticated technology as a juxtaposition with the naturalness of Truman Burbanks character. Discuss how and why he does this.

So HOW he does this: taking one of your examples is juxtaposing public media and Burbanks private life, right?
WHY he does this: is it to symbolize how precious privacy is?

Taking another one of your examples (new and old):

HOW: Shows new technology, e.g. high-tech cameras to 'spy' on Burbank.
WHY: Showing that technology these days are capable of anything?


Taking another one of your examples (powerful and vulnerable):

HOW: Powerful technology, vulnerable, sensitive Burbank.
WHY: Shows how sensitive and precious human feelings are and as he is vulnerable when he finds out he is being watched and his whole life is artificial?


I'm sorry for any trouble I have caused, as you can see I am having trouble finding the meanings of the juxtapositions.

Thanks in advance.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings, Ali.,

You don't seem confused - you're absolutely on the right track. Keep going and you'll have the essay done in no time!

Peace

 

[Ali.]

Greetings, Ali.,

You're absolutely on the right track - keep going and you'll have the essay done in no time!

Peace

Hi,

Alright. Thanks a lot for your help; I really appreciate it!

Peaceeace:

 

[Uthman]

Greetings Mr Gibson,

I don't know if this has been asked before, but could you possibly give me some help on writing essay conclusions?

I usually get told that you should "pull all your points together" or "tie up loose ends" or "summarise your main points".

But things like that don't really mean anything to me. Do they mean anything at all?

How exactly do you conclude an essay? It's actually a French essay I'm doing but rhe same principles apply I guess. It's about air pollution and what the French do about it.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings, Osman,

Greetings Mr Gibson,

I don't know if this has been asked before, but could you possibly give me some help on writing essay conclusions?

I usually get told that you should "pull all your points together" or "tie up loose ends" or "summarise your main points".

But things like that don't really mean anything to me. Do they mean anything at all?

They do indeed, and they are the most commonly given bits of advice about this with good reason. I can see how their meaning can seem a bit vague, though.

The conclusion is perhaps the most important part of the essay, and a good conclusion will sometimes make the difference between an essay that is rambling and literally inconclusive and an essay that has direction and focus. If you're writing an argumentative essay (and virtually all essays have an element of argument), then the conclusion is your knockout punch, where you remind the reader of all the excellent points you have made, and perhaps mention issues that your essay has not explored, which either fall outside of the essay's remit as you understand it, or which may remain as the focus for future work. One thing you should definitely try to avoid is making any new points in your conclusion.

How exactly do you conclude an essay? It's actually a French essay I'm doing but the same principles apply I guess. It's about air pollution and what the French do about it.

The same principles probably do apply, I would think.

So, what do the French do about air pollution? Well, as this essay has shown, they put most of their efforts into x. While y was seen as effective in days gone by, the people have learned that there's really no substitute for x. Another technique is z, but this is relatively new and is still at the prototype stage. The evidence I have gathered is surely enough to convince anyone that the French have found several ingenious / pitiful / useful / truly dangerous strategies for dealing with this modern menace.

That kind of approach (although with perhaps a more serious tone) is one I would recommend, provided you have had paragraphs in the main body of your essay about x, y and z, of course.

Here's some good advice from englishbiz.co.uk (a useful site):

To end the essay, you will need a concluding paragraph in which you restate your initial thesis statement and give your main reasons for thinking this. Although you have just explained all this in the detail of the preceding paragraphs, , it's a good idea to remind your reader, v-e-r-y succinctly (but this time with more individual feeling and personality, perhaps) of what you think and why. The secret is to keep the conclusion brief and to the point and, above all else, to introduce no new points at all.

Hope that helps!

Peace

 

[Re.TiReD]

Why do I keep getting confused with bought and brought :laugh: :-[

 

[Pk_#2]

Got your PM, Since you're free thought it would be better and easier to do it here!

I was wondering if you could link me to a good reliable site (or a book name) where I can learn about the following:

- History of English language ZzZ ano, but the teacher is sikkkkkkkk (as in cool)

- Critical reasoning

- Structure of English, like erm you know morphology, syntax, phonology and all the boring crap,

And if you have anything on your pc on the following, just copy and paste!

Thankoo for your time, much appreciated =D

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Why do I keep getting confused with bought and brought :laugh: :-[

This is one of the many confusing things in the highly confusing language that is English. This may help:

Bought is the past participle of buy.

Brought is the past participle of bring.

So: "I brought some money to the shop, then I bought some sweets."



Peace

 

[Re.TiReD]

It's very simple now that you explained it :-[ Thank you

 

[bewildred]

Well, all this took me so many years ago, to my college years. Okay, it was ten years ago. I feel soooo old!!! I loved literature and english grammar. I hated linguistics and phonology. For so many years, I could not spell out N.Chomsky's and De Saussure's names,lol.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Got your PM, Since you're free thought it would be better and easier to do it here!

Now I know it's an English related question, I think you're right.

I was wondering if you could link me to a good reliable site (or a book name) where I can learn about the following:

- History of English language ZzZ ano, but the teacher is sikkkkkkkk (as in cool)

The history of the English language is something I find fascinating, and I think you will too if you read Bill Bryson's Mother Tongue. I've got half a dozen histories of the English language and his is by far the most entertaining.

David Crystal's The Stories of English is very thorough but more technical.

Wikipedia, as ever, provides a concise article containing the main things you need to know.

- Critical reasoning

This could refer to many areas. Do you have any more specific information about this?

- Structure of English, like erm you know morphology, syntax, phonology and all the boring crap,

Here is a .pdf containing revision notes on these. Scroll past the contents pages and you'll find some useful definitions and examples.

Andrew Moore's English site may be of some help.

Thankoo for your time, much appreciated =D

Peace

 

[Pk_#2]

Greetings,

The history of the English language is something I find fascinating, and I think you will too if you read Bill Bryson's Mother Tongue. I've got half a dozen histories of the English language and his is by far the most entertaining.

Cool, I've ordered that one now, =)

David Crystal's The Stories of English is very thorough but more technical.

And this wan ^

My lecturer loves him! (Not in a dodgy wai)

Wikipedia, as ever, provides a concise article containing the main things you need to know.

Cool, ima print it out and absorb in2 ma brain cells, briefly skimmed it, just wan question, when mentioning Germanic tribes he never mentions Frisians, is dat made up or do they hav another name?

This could refer to many areas. Do you have any more specific information about this?

It's kinda based on Argument structure (Identifying arguments, conclusions, seeing what constitutes an argument), making assumptions and so on.. I missed my lectures so :-[ *scratch head*

Here is a .pdf containing revision notes on these. Scroll past the contents pages and you'll find some useful definitions and examples.

Wowwww, double wow! You deserve a rep & more for that wan!

Andrew Moore's English site

may be of some help.



Peace

Cool, I remember that wan! used that before, thankoo very much =D

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Sorry, as often, for the late reply. :-[

Cool, ima print it out and absorb in2 ma brain cells, briefly skimmed it, just wan question, when mentioning Germanic tribes he never mentions Frisians, is dat made up or do they hav another name?

The Frisians are mentioned. Have another look. You can find out more about them here.

It's kinda based on Argument structure (Identifying arguments, conclusions, seeing what constitutes an argument), making assumptions and so on.. I missed my lectures so :-[ *scratch head*

That sounds like a combination of logic, general philosophy and plain old common sense. A good, quick introduction to this sort of thinking that comes to mind is Bad Thoughts by Jamie Whyte. He examines several common ideas and exposes their fallacies, thereby giving you a crash course in logic on the way.

One classic introduction to philosophy is Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy. Again, it's a short book, but it might take a little longer to get your head around some of the ideas in it.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's page on Informal Logic gives a lot of information about evaluating arguments in everyday life.

If you want more of a literary direction, Peter Barry's Beginning Theory is a good introduction to critical reasoning in that sphere: Marxist, Freudian, post-colonial, feminist, structuralist and post- etc.

What is your course, by the way? Linguistics? English Language?

There are many books I could recommend, but I'm still slightly in the dark about what angle you're expected to be taking in your studies on all this.

Whatever it is, it sounds like there are some interesting things on your course.

Peace

 

[Pk_#2]

Greetings,

Sorry, as often, for the late reply. :-[

The Frisians are mentioned. Have another look. You can find out more about them here.

That sounds like a combination of logic, general philosophy and plain old common sense. A good, quick introduction to this sort of thinking that comes to mind is Bad Thoughts by Jamie Whyte. He examines several common ideas and exposes their fallacies, thereby giving you a crash course in logic on the way.

One classic introduction to philosophy is Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy. Again, it's a short book, but it might take a little longer to get your head around some of the ideas in it.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's page on Informal Logic gives a lot of information about evaluating arguments in everyday life.

If you want more of a literary direction, Peter Barry's Beginning Theory is a good introduction to critical reasoning in that sphere: Marxist, Freudian, post-colonial, feminist, structuralist and post- etc.

What is your course, by the way? Linguistics? English Language?

There are many books I could recommend, but I'm still slightly in the dark about what angle you're expected to be taking in your studies on all this.

Whatever it is, it sounds like there are some interesting things on your course.

Peace

Wow, thankoo,

You must read a lot of books,

English language Studies, (yeah I duno what I was thinking)

Oh yah ma teacher said Frisians do exist :coolious: br.Guven is a Frisian he lives in the Netherlands and must be in his 90's by now...:thumbs_up

Erm when looking at a text from old english and that how can you tell what century it is from? 'Cause in our exam, we might for example get a text from the nineteenth century and we have to say which one it is, argh this is too difficult for me :exhausted

Missing lessons to sit down infront of the pc with the blanket around me doesn't help! +o(

Ciao! =)

 

[Kas1m]

English is my second language and i have a question.
Sometimes i read in a book when it says 'it's' and other times it just simply says 'its'. What is the difference between them?
For example if you want to say its a good day.
Would your say: its a good day. Or: it's a good day.

 

[Pk_#2]

English is my second language and i have a question.
Sometimes i read in a book when it says 'it's' and other times it just simply says 'its'. What is the difference between them?
For example if you want to say its a good day.
Would your say: its a good day. Or: it's a good day.

It's a good day

As in... it is a good day

The (') aprostrophe (sp?) is there to fill in for the missing letter/s

I think =D