💸 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!

Hans Marchand

A SET OF CRITERIA FOR THE ESTABLISHING

OF DERIVATIONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORDS UNMARKED BY DERIVATIONAL MORPHEMES

1.1. In a recent article I have taken up the question of derivational relationship between derivationally unmarked words, extending it in another article to backderived words. Here I propose to conclude the argument by giving a survey of the criteria used and adding a few not yet dealt with. The criteria fall into two groups, those of content and those of external form. The criteria of the first group (2.—5.) are: semantic depen­dence, range of usage, semantic range, and semantic pattern. The most important is that of semantic dependence, as it is as often as not sufficient in itself to solve the question of derivational relationship while the other criteria have a more or less concomitant character. The criteria of the second group (6.—8.) are: phonetic shape, morphologic type, and stress. They will illustrate how external factors can help to indicate derivational relationship.

1.2. A derivational connection between words presupposes a correspondence both on the plane of expression (phonic form) and content. With derivationally unmarked words, as bridge sb and bridge vb, the first is automatically established by the lack of morphologic characterization which entails phonic identity. We thus are, in the case of homophonous or rather quasi-homophonous word pairs, only confronted with the problem of content. I say ‘quasi-homophonous’, as in many cases, e. g. conflict sb from conflict vb, we have at the same time phonological changes of vowel and/or consonant.

1.3. The term ‘derivationally unmarked’ is important. Many words are marked with regard to the class of words to which they belong, as is evident from the stress-distinguished type conflict sb from conflict vb. But this mark is not a derivational mark as is a suffix. The suffix -ize (e. g. westernize) not only tells us that the word formed with it is a verb, but at the same time that the verb is derived from the unsuffixed word western. Stress, however, in the above mentioned type, shows only categorial appurtenance without giving us immediate information as to which word is derived from the other.

Stress distinction is on the same level with distinction by absence or presence of voice in the case of words ending in a fricative, type belief from believe. The character of the fricative does not indicate whether the substantive is from the verb or the verb from the substantive. This derivational dependence is established by means of content and of semantic pattern. The voiced or voiceless character only places the respective verb in a certain word class, but it is not more than a categorial marker, not primarily connected with derivation. See below 8.1.—5.

1.4.1. It will be understood from the outset that there is no derivational connection between words if the words have no semantic features in common. This is clear for such obviously unrelated words as exact adj. and exact vb, handle sb and handle vb, exploit sb and exploit vb, defect sb and defect vb which are therefore out of consideration. There is no relationship between convict ‘prove or find guilty’ and convict ‘person serving a prison sentence’, though etymological ties do exist. The sb account in the majority of its meanings has no connection with the verb account which is chiefly used in constructions like account for, account to. The only connection is between account ‘render an account of’ and account sb, as in render an account to God, where the substantive is a deverbal derivation from the verb. The verb mind (do you mind, I do not mind) is today not connected with mind sb, nor is the verb matter (it does not matter) connected with the substantive matter. Between object sb (all senses) and object vb, project sb and project vb (the sense ‘plan’ is hardly alive with the verb) there exist no semantic ties.

1.4.2. A word may be a derivative in one sense and not in another. Both verb and substantive may follow separate trends of semantic development that are not necessarily parallelled by the other pair member. There is no connection between trust vb and trust ‘cartel’ though there is one between the verb and the substantive in various other senses. The substantive act (as in the act of a madman, or in the sense ‘simulated performance’) is a deverbal derivative (act like a madman, he is merely acting), but act as in Act of Parliament, act ‘division of a play’ is not, as it cannot be connected with any sense of the verb act. The sb care and the verb care are no longer closely related semantically. Only for the sense ‘charge, responsibility, look after’ is there a connection between verb and substantive. Sentences such as She cares for the children lead to a deverbal substantive care: the children are in her care, she takes care of the children, also to such recent compounds as caretaker and baby care. But other senses of the verb are not matched by substantives and vice versa. I don’t care, who cares? To care about a person have no substantive to go with, nor are care ‘watchful attention’ (as in with care, careful and careless), care ‘grief, anxiety’ (as in carefree, careworn) accompanied by verbal uses of care. In some cases, the verb taste derives a deverbal substantive (I have tasted the pleasures of life / I have had a taste of the pleasures of life). But taste ‘perceive by the sense of taste’ (I can neither taste or smell) is derived from the substantive taste. And taste as in the milk tastes sour is a derivative from the substantive taste ‘savour’. On the other hand, there is no verb for taste ‘sense of appropriateness’.