I intraduction chapter I theoretical

B) DERIVATIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL AFFIXES
Lexicology usually deals with derivational affixes; the alternative institute is the domain of grammar. Derivational affixes, like the whole problem of phrase formation, form a borderland between lexicology and grammar and are therefore studied in both. Language is a machine in which lexical and grammatical factors are closely related, and our observation of affixes cannot be complete without some dialogue about the similarities and differences between derivational and useful morphemes. The similarities are obvious because they are so often homonymous (see p.18 for the most important cases of homonymy between derivational and useful affixes). Otherwise, the two companies are fundamentally unusual because they produce unusual kinds of these means. Functional affixes serve to convey grammatical meanings. They create unusual kinds of the same phrase. Phrase form, or phrase form, is described as one of the unusual components that a phrase can additionally take because of intonation. The complete units of all the various forms of a phrase, taken into account as inflective patterns that include declensions or conjugations, are called paradigms. A paradigm is described in grammar as an apparatus of the grammatical bureaucratic function of a phrase, e.g., near, nearer, nearest; son, son's, son's, sons, sons'. Derivational affixes serve to supply the base with additions of lexical and lexico-grammatical meaning, and thus form4 different phrases. The same lexico-grammatical meaning of an affix is occasionally observed through unusual mixtures of diverse lexical meanings. Thus, the lexico-grammatical meaning represented by means of the suffix - y consists in the ability to express the qualitative concept of extraordinary for adjectives and to form adjectives from noun bases. The lexical meanings of the equal suffix are very diverse: 'full, as in hairy or cloudy, 'consisting of, as in stony, 'having the appearance of, as in slang, 'similar, as in baggy, 'covered, as in bushy, and some others. This suffix occasionally conveys the emotional complements of the medium. E. g.: My feedback in college was, 'Unable to be disciplined; too fond of organizing,' which has become the most effective way of saying, 'Bossy.' (M. Dickens) Bossy no longer means "polite as a boss" or "acting like a boss," it is also a derogatory phrase. This significant difference in the meaning and characterization of the two affix groups leads to an interesting relationship: the presence of a derivational affix now does not save the phrase from being equal to any other phrase in which that suffix is missing, so that they can be replaced by each other in context. The presence of a useful affix so alters the distributive houses of a phrase that it can in no way be replaced by a simple phrase without violating the grammatical standard. To be sure of this, recall the following quotation from Shakespeare: Cowards usually die before they die, valiant ones do not know what death is, but only once. No single-morphemic phrase here can be replaced by the phrases cowards, cases, or death, since the absence of a plural sign would make the sentence ungrammatical. Phrases containing derivational affixes can be replaced by means of morphologically unusual phrases, for example, the by-product valiant can be replaced by means of a root phrase like brave. In a declaration like I wash my arms of the whole affair (Du Maurier), the word affair can be replaced by a by-product enterprise or by a simple word factor, since their distributive houses are the same. However, it cannot be updated with a phrase containing a useful affix (affairs or things), since this would require replacement within the rest of the sentence. The American structuralists B. Bloch and G. Traeger formulate this factor as follows: "A suffixal byproduct is a two-morphemic phrase that is grammatically equal to (can be replaced by) any simple phrase in all constructions where it occurs."
This rule should not be taken as practically immutable, because the ability to construct phrases and the productivity of stems depend on many factors. Thus, after - ness, - ity, - dom, - deliver, and - hood there can be no additive suffixes. A byproduct is usually capable of additional derivation and is therefore a homonym of the base. For example, the word foolish is formed from the base fool - and is a homonym to the base foolish -, resulting in the phrases foolishness and foolishly. Inflected phrases give up homonymy with the stem. No additional derivation is possible from the word combination fools, in which the base fool - is observed through the useful affix - s. Inflected word combinations are neither structurally nor functionally equal to morphologically simple word combinations belonging to an identical part of speech. Thing is not the same as commercial enterprise, functionally, because these phrases cannot arise in the same contexts, and structurally, because of the exceptional individuality of their components in place and their exceptional phrase-formation capabilities. Paying special attention to the difference in semantic features of different types of morphemes, let us note that they are exceptional positively. A useful affix marks the boundary of a phrase; it can only observe the affix of derivation and is available to the latter, so that no additional derivation is possible for the stem to which the useful affix is brought. This is why useful affixes are called external formants by E. Nida in contrast to internal formants, which are equal to our derivational affixes. It could probably be argued that the external function of useful affixes is refuted by such examples as invalid, unwanted. It should be noted, however, that in these phrases - ed is not a useful affix, it receives derivational pressure, so that the disableds is not a form of the verb to disable, but an entirely new phrase - a collective noun. A phrase without external formants is open, so to speak, because it is homonymic to the stem and derivational affixes can be attached to it. Once we load the external formant, no additional derivation is possible. The form can be considered closed. The semantic, useful and positional distinction already mentioned is supported by statistical houses and valency distinction (combinability). Of the three main forms of morphemes, namely roots, derivational affixes and useful affixes (formants), roots are in a sense the most numerous. There are many thousands of roots in English; derivational affixes, though listed, have not passed a few marks. The list in Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary is 5 pages and a half long, including all the exact causes in their beginnings and meanings, or even then the actual living suffixes are far fewer. As for useful affixes, there are hardly more than ten. For example, common English verbs have only four forms: play, plays, plays, played, playing, compared to German verbs, which have as many as sixteen. The valency of these three corpora of morphemes is obviously in inverse proportion to their number. Functional affixes can be attached, with a few exceptions, to any part of speech which they serve. The usual relation between singular and plural forms of nouns may serve to demonstrate this position.
So, coronary heart:: hearts; boy::boys etc. Relics of archaic forms, including child::children, or overseas plurals such as criterion::standards, are only a few different from these. Derivative affixes are no longer integrated so freely and regularly. The suffix -en, turning into golden and leaden, cannot be transferred to the stem steel-. However, since they serve to refer to certain phrase corporations, their correlations are by no means distant and always include more oppositions, e.g. boy::boyish, child::childish, book::bookish, gold::golden , lead:: leaden, wood:: wooden. The valency of the roots is of a completely exceptional order, and the oppositions can sometimes be removed. For example, it's hard to find any other pair with a coronary heart stem and the same date as in coronary heart::sweetheart. Knowing the useful plural suffix -s, we understand how countable nouns decline. The chance of error is low. With derivative affixes, the situation is much more complicated. Knowing, for example, the entire list of feminization affixes, that is, the formation of feminine nouns from the stems of masculine nouns by including a feature suffix, we can implement a completely new phrase if we understand the stem. However, this knowledge will no longer allow us to collect phrases applicable to the English vocabulary, since derivational affixes are combined with their unique stems in an unsystematic and unpredictable way. Why, for example, is it not possible to call lady-guest - a guest like host:: hostess? Note also: lion:: lioness, tiger:: tigress, but bear:: she is a bear, elephant:: she is an elephant, wolf:: she is a she-wolf; very often the correlation is strong through supplementation, so we have boar:: sow, bull:: fallow deer, bull:: cow, rooster:: hen, ram:: sheep. Similarly, in toponymy: a resident of London is called a Londoner, a resident of Moscow - a Muscovite, Vienna - a crown, Athens - an Athenian. On the whole this country of factors is more or less not an unusual place for many languages; however, English has stricter restrictions on this admiration than, for example, Russian; of course, the variety of possibilities of the English language can be very narrow. The Russian language now not only has a large number of diminutive affixes, but can also attach them to the same stem: boy, boy, boy, boy, boy, boy. Nothing like this exists for an English noun with the stem boy. With a feminine noun, a diminutive - ie can be introduced, but no longer - ette, - let, - kin / - kins. The same is true even if the respective nouns have much in common: a quick lecture is a lecture, but a small photograph is by no means called a photograph. Thus, the possibility that a given stem will integrate with a given affix is ​​no longer unproblematic. To summarize: derivational and useful morphemes may be the same in sound form, but they differ significantly in meaning, function, valency, statistical features, and structural houses.