Morphology Clause Samples

Morphology. Yhe main question to be answered in chapter 2 was whether the subjunctive is a second present formed from the preterite stem. After an introduction (2.1, p 21) and a short description of the verb in general (2.2, p 26), the concept of a stem pattern was discussed in 2.5 (p 59): a Yocharian verb consists of five basic stems, i.e. present, subjunctive, preterite, preterite participle and imperative. Mostly, the present stem is marked with an additional suffix compared to the non-present stems. In addition to the important distinction between monosyllabic roots ending in a consonant (“Nicht-A-Wurzeln”, Hackstein 1995: 16-57) and disyllabic roots ending in -a (“A-Wurzeln”, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇.▇.), verbal roots must be divided into gradable roots with basic a-vocalism, “a|x-roots”, and non-gradable roots with basic a-vocalism, “a|x-roots” (2.4, p 44). Yhese two distinctions yield the four root types a|Ø and a|Ø (“Nicht-A-Wurzeln”), and a|a and a|a (“A-Wurzeln”). In 2.5 (p 47), the morphological distinctions of the verb were investigated, while 2.6 (Yocharian A, p 94) and 2.7 (Yocharian B, p 117) contain an inventory of verbal stem patterns based on the stem suffixes. With the important distinction of present- subjunctives, i.e. presents that can also be used as subjunctives, it turned out that presents are often distinguished by a separate suffix, whereas subjunctives are formed from the same stem as the preterite. Yhe differences between the subjunctive and the preterite stems are confined to inflexional peculiarities, in particular slightly different gradation and palatalisation patterns, and an accent contrast in Yocharian B. Sections 2.8 and 2.9 were devoted to the derivation of the imperative (2.8, p 157) and the preterite participle (2.9, p 146) from the subjunctive and preterite stems, and the chapter is concluded with a small summary in 2.1o (p 152).

Morphology. In order to address the questions whether the subjunctive can be seen as a second present and to what extent the preterite stem is identical with the subjunctive stem, the morphological markers and stem patterns of the verb need to be analysed.

Morphology. (i) Nominative

Morphology. Trillium pusillum var. ozarkanum grows from a long, thick rhizome. The stems are 10.0 to

Morphology morpheme, allomorph, morphophonology, lexeme, lexical category (including traditional grammatical terminology), bound and free morphemes, derivational morphemes, inflectional morphemes, affixes (all kinds).

Morphology. The PCA indicates that the vegetative characters explain most of the variation between the taxa analyzed. The vegetative characters correlating most with the variation between the two V. stagnina morphs are plant height and petiole length/stipule length ratio. Bract length and sepal length are the reproductive characters correlating most with the variation observed between the two morphs. The CDA of all accessions included in this study shows that only very few accessions of the two morphs of V. stagnina are misidentified. Accessions of the hybrid ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ × stagnina are either identified as V. stagnina or ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇. because two accessions had especially vegetative characters in common with, while the characters of the other hybrid accessions resembled those of ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇. The accessions of the other three species are all correctly identified. The discriminant analysis of only the V. stagnina accessions shows that leaf length, upper bract length, sepal appendage/sepal length ratio, and stipule length/petiole length ratio together correctly identify 91.2% of the stagnina morph and 93.8% of the lacteoides morph. These four characters were also highly significant in the Student-T test (Table 4), suggesting that these are the best characters to distinguish both morphs. Re-examination of the misidentified stagnina morph accessions suggests that these plants had not properly developed because they suffered from drought. Precipitation during the spring of 2007, the year of collection, was extraordinary low. The misidentification of the lacteoides morph accession as stagnina morph is probably caused by the fact that this plant had unusual large stipules and leaves as compared to other accessions of the lacteoides morph analyzed. These characters are known to be plastic in V. stagnina (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1932). All the other morphological characters and our AFLP data, however, indicate that the identification of this accession is correct. The morphology of V. stagnina is known to be greatly influenced by abiotic factors such as moisture content, light exposure and soil type (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1932). In a common garden experiment with non-flowering plants of both morphs, initial differences observed in the field, such as plant height and leaf color, disappeared over time. Lamina length and stipule length/petiole length ratio, however, remained significantly different between the two morphs (Van den Hof et al., submitted7).

Morphology. The first component of the PCA of all morphological characters explained 25.6

Morphology. Languages are consisted of words, and there always exist a process of formation of unfamiliar words, this formation usually based on the making new words from the existing words, this process is studied as Morphology. Anroff & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2010) argued that the word morphology is invented by a German scholar ▇▇▇▇▇▇ in biological context in 19th century, which is a Greek word, means study of forms. Linguistically meaning of morphology is the representation of mental system of making words and known as study of lexemes and their forms and structures. For example, from word, word, wording, and from work, works working worked are generated. A word in a language may be consist of many constituents, for example nationalization, nationality, national, nations are come from one root element ‘nation’.

Morphology. Written with the assist. of ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. Copenhagen. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇. 1978: Mehrfachpräsentien im Agveda. Гrankfurt a. M. etc. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇. 2000: Medium – Voice. Theorie des Lexikons, Arbeiten des SГB 282 Nr.117. Universitäten Wuppertal und Düsseldorf. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇. ▇. 2001: “Verbal reflexives and the middle voice”, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung [HSK 20.2]. Berlin & New York, 916-27. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, E. L. 1976: “Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’”, in: Li 1976: 303-33. — 1985: “Passive in the world’s languages”, in: Shopen 1985: 243-281. ▇▇▇▇, ▇. 1859: Grammatici Latini. Vol. III. Prisciani grammatici Caesariensis institu- tionum grammaticarum libri XVIII ex recensione M. Hertzii. Vol. II. Libros XIII-XVIII. Leipzig. Nachdruck Hildesheim 1961. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇. 1984: Le verbe Avestique. Wiesbaden. — 1995: Liste du verbe avestique. Wiesbaden. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇. & E. Pirart 1988, 1991: Les textes vieil-avestique. Vol. 1: Introduction, texte et traduction (1988), Vol. 2: Repertoires grammaticaux et lexiques, Vol 3: Commentaire (1991). Wiesbaden. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇. 1993: The Middle Voice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. — 1994: “Middle Voice, Transitivity, and the Elaboration of Events”, in: Гox & Hop- per 1994: 179-230. Kent, R. G. 1953: Old Persian. Grammar, texts, lexicon. 2nd ed. New Haven. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇. 2008 (Ms.): Indo-European Syntax. Manuskript. Download unter ▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇ / im Druck für Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An International Handbook of Language Comparison and the Reconstruction of Indo-European. Ed. by M. A. Гritz (Berlin) and J. S. Klein (Athens/ Georgia). Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of linguistics and communication science. Berlin & New York. — 2013: Infinitive im ´gveda: Formen, Funktion, Diachronie. Leiden & Boston. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇. & ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ i. Dr. (Ms.): “Definite referential null objects in Vedic San- skrit and Ancient Greek”, i. Dr. für Acta Linguistica Hafniensia. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇. 1979: Vedisch uk? und uk?/vak?. Wortgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchungen. Wiesbaden. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇. 1968: “Tense and Mood in Indo-European Syntax”, Гoundations of Lan- guage 4, 30-57. — 2005: “The Vedic Injunctive: Historical and synchronic implications”, The Year- book of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2005. Ed. by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. New Delhi u.a. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇. & J. Г. Staal 1969: “Syntactic and semantic relations in Pāṇini”, Гounda- tions of Language ...