💸 Как сделать бизнес проще, а карман толще?

Тот, кто работает в сфере услуг, знает — без ведения записи клиентов никуда. Мало того, что нужно видеть свое раписание, но и напоминать клиентам о визитах тоже. Проблема в том, что средняя цена по рынку за такой сервис — 800 руб/мес или почти 15 000 руб за год. И это минимальный функционал. Нашли самый бюджетный и оптимальный вариант: сервис VisitTime.
⚡️ Для новых пользователей первый месяц бесплатно. А далее 290 руб/мес, это в 3 раза дешевле аналогов. За эту цену доступен весь функционал: напоминание о визитах, чаевые, предоплаты, общение с клиентами, переносы записей и так далее.
✅ Уйма гибких настроек, которые помогут вам зарабатывать больше и забыть про чувство «что-то мне нужно было сделать».
Сомневаетесь? нажмите на текст, запустите чат-бота и убедитесь во всем сами!

Stem morpheme identification” as a means to suffix segmentation

We have concluded so far that instances of final -al, -ic, -ly and -y are incapable of reliable identification with morphemes (AL), (IC), (LY) and (Y) owing to their relative lack of phonemic, graphemic and semantic distinctiveness.

We must approach the problem from a new direction. If we cannot identify -al, -ic, -ly and -y with the morphemes (AL), (IC), (LY) and (Y) by holding each one up for examination, we can at least aim at segmenting the suffix by establishing the morphemic status of the rest of the word. Segmentation can be done in two ways:

S 1 (= Segmentation rule no.1)

If we can recognize the stem (or that part adjacent to the affix) as appearing elsewhere in Webster or Brown as a free form we thereby establish the morphemic status of that form. By this means we isolate and segment the affix.

Example 1:

fishy to be segmented;

fish appears in Webster as a free form;

segmentation of fishy = fish- + -y.

Example 2:

grandfatherly to be segmented;

grandfather appears in Webster as a free form;

segmentation of grandfatherly = grandfather- + -ly.

Example 3:

unmanly to be segmented;

man appears in Webster as a free form;

segmentation of unmanly = un- + -man- + -ly.

S 2

If the stem or its final part does not appear elsewhere as a free form, the morphemic status of the stem can be proved by means of this pattern:

undeserv-: undeceiv- + -ed: -ing

(The shift within each of the two pairs must be semantically, phonologically, and graphemically consistent.) We then go on to segment the suffix. [...]

Note that in both S 1 and S 2 we first establish the morphemic status of the stem, thereby isolating and segmenting the affix.

These two methods are adequate for most cases, but a smallish number of cases remain when we feel strongly that we have a right to segment but are not permitted to do so by rules S 1 and S 2. Such a case is cordial, where the stem cordi- is neither a free form nor segmentable by the pattern:

cordi- :? + -al:?

We have however the related form cordiform where we recognize form as ap­pearing elsewhere as a free form, leaving us witha bound form cordi- with morphemic status. With the help of this cordi- we can isolate and segment the suffix -al.

We need a new rule to enable us to use this principle for segmenting cordial.

This rule is S 3.

S 3

A stem can be segmented from its affix(es) if the stemor its affix-adjacent morpheme(s) appear in Websteror elsewhere in Brown asa bound form segmentable by S 1 and/or S 2.

Example:

rational to be segmented;

consider the word irrational;

rational appears in Webster as a free form;

segmentation of irrational = ir- + -rational (by rule S 1);

again consider the word irrational;

apply pattern irration-: soci- + -al: -able;

segmentation of irrational = ir- + -ration- + -al (by rule S 2);

segmentation of rational = ration- + -al.

These three segmentation techniques we shall call “stem morpheme identification”.

Note that Recognition criteria must be applied at all times (see section III below).