ÿþPaul's engineered scarves for women yet playful approach works with each material's properties and integrates materials in innovative ways. His design development is always built on what has been learned from earlier work, with increasingly finely applied technique and material investigation. Each collection represents a crystallization of ideas at that moment objects that are a culmination of all of their investigation to date, while forming the starting point of their future work."It was a crazy idea, this supplying writers with different kinds of fur hats," Voinovich (pronounced voy-NOH-vich) said in this thickly accented English. "But good fur hats are expensive and almost impossible to get. In fact, there is a joke in the Soviet Union about a person who calls Radio Yerevan and asks: Why is there a shortage of reindeer fur hats? This was not a problem in Stalin's time.'
Scott Carlsen, Lohan's loyal publicist-manager , sent over a video advertising the beachfront club. In it, there are many, many women in bikinis, but no Lohan. There are a gaggle of beefy boys wearing hats and pouring champagne, but no Lohan. There's a remix of that Chainsmokers and Coldplay song and sweeping drone shots, but no Lohan. There are little taglines, like "Forget anything you've ever seen" and "Cooking delicious memories," but no Lohan. Where is Lohan? Seems like a club would want to advertise its namesake.
In ladies scarves this sense they are not very different from the morphemes in complex words like re calibrate or consumer ism , which we write "solid", i.e. without spaces. The question of whether a morpheme sequence is written "solid" is largely a matter of orthographic convention, and in any case may be variable even in a particular writing system. Indeed, even using more reliable tests based on real data from spoken data rather than the arbitrary patterns of accessorize scarves writing, it can sometimes be difficult to determine how to draw the line between words and morphemes. Nonetheless, word and morpheme are very useful and perhaps even indispensable concepts for our discussion of morphology. Combining morphemes: the constituent structure of words Now, we can say that the relationship between words and morphemes is that words are made out of one or more morphemes put together. (An example of a one-morpheme word would be under .) We must ask, then, how this works. Are words just strings of morphemes, or do they have more structure, like sentences do? It turns out that words are like sentences, i.e. they have internal constituent structure. This can be demonstrated with English examples. Notice two uses of the prefix un- . UN- added to a verb gives another verb.
General properties of inflectional morphemes:grace (to) grace ? ? graceful gracefulness ? gracefully ? ungraceful ungracefulness ungracefully graceless next scarves gracelessness ?? gracelessly ?? ? gracious graciousness ? ? graciously ? ? ungracious ungraciousness ? ungraciously ? disgrace disgraceful disgracefulness ? disgracefully ? (to) disgrace ? Notice that each word that results from a derivational process can then participate in a further derivation . For example disgracefully is derived from disgraceful , which is derived from disgrace which is derived from grace . This is quite unlike inflection, where the set of relationships is fixed by the overall grammar of the language.
So morphology does a lot of the same things that syntax does, but on a different level. This makes it somewhat difficult at times to draw the line between the two. For example, we normal consider prepositional phrases like in the house and for the glory to be constituents put together by the syntax. Yet they often serve precisely the same functions as nouns with case-marking, like that we discussed for Icelandic and Old English. So while in Modern English we might say the end of the book , in Old English we would have said thaet ende tha es boc es , where we have endings on the noun and determiner instead of a preposition. Some examples like this aren't all that problematic. There really is a syntactic difference between the two modes of expression. But with the example at hand, there is some evidence, which would take us too far afield, to indicate that certain PPs are not really syntactic phrases at all, but just funny types of morphology, exactly like nouns with case-endings.
So in some ways the possessive is acting like a morphological affix, while in other it is acting like an independent word that is brought together with the NP in the syntax. In-between elements like this are called clitics , which comes from the Greek word meaning "to lean". That is, they are like words that can't stand up on their own and have to lean on some other word. Thus while plural formation in English is clearly morphological, it is not clear whether the addition of the possessive clitic is morphological or syntactic. The point is, the scarves primark line between syntax and morphology is somewhat blurred.Assuming that we could somehow come up with a consistent way to draw the line between syntax and morphology, we have to wonder then how the two are related. Since they deal with very similar things, they must be tightly connected, but it is not entirely clear how they should be ordered. Should the syntax do its work and send it off to the morphology, or vice-versa? Or should the two actually work simultaneously? We can think about these questions in terms of the following sentence: He knows that they like her better.