Morphological classification of languages ??- typological classification of world languages ??according to the principles of morphological structure of words.
According to this classification, all languages ??are divided into: root, agglutinative, inflectional and polysynthetic.
In root languages, words do not break down into morphemes: roots and affixes. Words of such languages ??are morphologically unformed units such as indefinite words what is philosophy essay in the Ukrainian language there, right here, from where, where. The root languages ??are Vietnamese, Burmese, Old Chinese, largely contemporary Chinese. Grammatical relations in between words in these languages ??are transmitted by intonation, service words, word order.
Agglutinative languages ??contain Turkic and Finno-Ugric languages. In their structure, furthermore to the root, there are affixes (both word-changing and word-forming). The peculiarity of affixes in these languages ??is that each affix is ??unambiguous, ie each of them serves to express only 1 grammatical meaning, with whatever root it is actually combined. That is how they differ from inflectional languages, in which the affix acts as a carrier of many grammatical meanings at as soon as.
Inflectional languages ??- languages ??in which the major part within the expression of grammatical meanings is played by inflection (ending). Inflectional languages ??contain Indo-European and Semitic-Hamitic. Unlike agglutinative languages, exactly where affixes are unambiguous, typical and mechanically attached to complete words, in inflectional languages ??the ending is ambiguous, non-standard, joins the base, that is typically not used without the need of inflection, and organically merges together with the base, forming a single alloy, because of this, different adjustments can happen at the junction of morphemes. The formal interpenetration of contacting morphemes, which results in the blurring from the boundaries among them, is named fusion. Therefore the second name of inflectional languages ??- fusion.
Polysynthetic, or incorporating – languages ??in which distinctive components of a sentence inside the form of amorphous base words are combined into a single complex, similar to complicated words. As a result, in the language in the Aztecs (an Indian folks living in Mexico), the word-sentence pinakapilkva, which means I consume meat, was formed from the composition in the words pi – I, nakatl – meat and kvya – to eat. Such a word corresponds to our sentence. This really is explained by the fact that in polysynthetic languages ??various objects of action and circumstances in which the action requires location might be expressed not by individual members from the sentence (applications, situations), but by various affixes which are part of verb types. In portion, the verb forms involve the subject.
Typological classification of languages ??- a classification depending on the identification of similarities and variations within the structure of languages, irrespective of their genetic relatedness.
Thus, when the genealogical classification unites languages ??by their origin, then the typological classification divides languages ??by the characteristics of their structure, no matter their origin and place in space. In addition to the term typological classification of languages, the term morphological classification is frequently made use of as a synonym. Such use in the term http://www.feld.com morphological classification of languages ??in place of typological classification of languages ??is unjustified and inappropriate for various motives. Initial, the word morphological is https://www.ewriters.pro related in linguistics with all the term morphology, which suggests the grammatical doctrine of your word along with the structure with the word, not the language as a complete. By the way, some linguists have an understanding of the morphological classification: speaking of morphological, or typological, classification, we mean the classification of languages ??on the basis of morphological structure, word type. In reality, the typological classification goes far beyond morphology. Secondly, in current years, various sorts of typological classification have become increasingly common: morphological, syntactic, phonetic, and so on.