💸 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!

Word-formation on a native and on a foreign basis

1.4.1. Bearing in mind the bi-morphemic, i. e. two-sign character of derivatives; and the ensuing opposability of both elements, it seems a little embarrassing to revert to the topic of the analysis of conceive, deceive, receive described as bi-morphemic by Bloomfield, Harris, and Nida. Newman establishes such suffixal derivatives as horr-or, horr-id, horr-ify; stup-or, stup-id, stup-efy. What are the bases horr- and stup- and what are the-meanings of the suffixes? With the exception of stupefy which by forced interpretation could be made to look like a syntagma, none of the ‘derivatives’ is analysable into two significates. [...] The fact that we can align such formal series as con-tain, de-tain, re-tain; con-ceive, de-ceive, re-ceive does not prove any morphemic character of the formally iden­tical parts as they are not united by a common significate. The preceding words are nothing but monemes. Conceive, receive, deceive are not comparable to syntagmas such as co-author ‘joint-author’, re-do ‘do-again’, de-frost ‘remove the frost’ the correct analysis of which is proved by nu­merous parallel syntagmas (co-hostess, co-chairman, co-de­fendant; re-write, re-hash, re-furbish; de-gum, de-husk, de-horn). If the two series con-tain, de-tain, re-tain / con-ceive, de-ceive, re-ceive, through mere syllabication and arbitrary division of sound complexes yield morphemes, why should we not be allowed to establish the similar morpheme-yielding series ba-ker, fa-ker, ma-ker / bai-ling, fai-ling, mai-ling? If we neglect content, how can we expose such a division as nonsensical? [...] In actual fact, nobody would think of making the wrong morpheme division as our memory keeps perfect store of free and bound morphemes as significant/significate relations. It is only with a certain restricted class of words of distinctly non-native origin that we fall into the error of establishing unisolable morphemes. [...]

1.4.2. If receive, deceive, conceive are matched by the substantives reception, deception, conception, this is so be­cause Latin verbs in -cipere are anglicized as verbs in -ceive while the corresponding Latin substantives receptio, deceptio, conceptio in English have the form given above. The alternation -sume vb -sumption sb is obviously restricted to pairs corresponding to the Latin alternation -sumere vb -sumptio sb. Nobody, unless he was trying to be witty, would extend the correlative pattern to pairs of words outside the particular structural system to which the words ultimately belong. Rime with receive / reception could not make anyone derive believe / beleption, nor would the pattern consume / consumption produce loom / lumption, boom / bumption. The natural synchronic description will therefore deal with foreign-coined words on the basis of the structural system to which they belong.

1.4.3. With regard to compounding, prefixing, and suffixing, word-formation proceeds either on a native or on a foreign basis of coining. The term ‘native basis of coin­ing’ means that a derivative must be analysable as consist­ing of two independent morphemes (in the event of a com­pound as rain-bow)or of a combination of independent and dependent morpheme (in the case of prefixal and suffixal derivatives as un-just, boy-hood).By word-formation on a foreign basis of coining I understand derivation on the morphologic basis of another language. In English, French, and German, to give three principal European languages, most learned, scientific, or technical words are formed on the morphologic basis of Latin or Greek. [...]