05/15/2022
In regard to the post with the You-tube video about Morphology and Etymology:
Hi. A good presentation on the importance of teaching morphology and etymology. If you are interested enough to watch it, there are a few things you might consider thinking of differently from the presenter, though..
1. She refers to the main part of the word as the "root". I would call it the "base" and reserve "root" for the actual Latin, Greek, or other actual root.
2, Kind of nitpicky but she presents the base (she calls it root") of a word like spectator as "spec". I would present it as "spect"
3. Speaking of that "t", she refers to -tion, -sion, and -cian as suffixes. I would agree that they are spoken syllables but not suffixes. The suffixes are -ion and -ian. Why? Well, for example. the word action" is "act" +"ion". That is the correct morphology. You can't "ac". You "act". One who does magic in not a "magi" + "cian". That person is a "magic" + "ian" ="magician". The suffixes -ion and -ian are added to intact base words.
4. At the end she is asked if we should pronounce the prefixes, based (roots in her terminolgy) and suffixes or spell them out. She suggests it doesn't matter. What I have learned is that it is better to spell them out. Pronunciation changes when different affixes are attached. Say "sign". Now say "signature". Did you pronounced the base "sign" the same in both words?
Overall, I think the presentation is a great intro to why we need to teach morphology and etymology. I just felt like if I was going to share it I had to point out those things that I have learned, and teach, differently because they are important differences, imho.
Oh, and I would not downplay the value of etymonline as she did. It is a great resource!
