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 lingustic structure, not of linguistic presentation (as a lexeme is), nor of linguistic meaning (as a sememe is).
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)