I was thinking that a sound or phoneme might go on, after, or before a word like the sound 'oh' going after the word 'that' or 'game' which might make the words 'thatoh' or 'gameoh'

So I thought or asked Might a sound or phoneme be an affix?

Show if you understand what I wrote Or let me know if you understand what I wrote

  • I think that o is a colloquialising suffix (-o), as in convo, arvo, lesbo etc.
    – Void
    Apr 15 '21 at 8:08
  • I put the sound ‘oh' after the word 'game' or 'that' but I’m thinking you would put any sound after a word. Putting the sound ‘oh' after the word 'game' or 'that' was an example. Apr 15 '21 at 8:29
  • I understand that "oh" is just an example, but what do you mean by "Can it be an affix?" You can put it after a word, if you want to. Are you asking if we can call it an affix, or if it functions like an affix, or what?
    – stangdon
    Apr 15 '21 at 14:42
  • Also, you might want to look up Pig Latin and Double Dutch, because they are similar to what you want to do.
    – stangdon
    Apr 15 '21 at 14:44
  • I’m sorry if I responded to you late and I was thinking if ‘oh’ after a word is an affix or if some call it an affix or what ‘oh’ after a word might be or what some might call it Apr 20 '21 at 17:01

You are mixing up different levels of language. Here is map:

sounds -> phonemes ->   morphology -> syntax -> semantics -> pragmatics  
glyphs -> characters -/

A phoneme is a unit of spoken language. It is a recognisable sound. So in English, there are sounds /r/ and /l/ These are recognised as different by English speakers. In written English, the equivalent is the "letter".

At the next level, phonemes are combined to make morphemes and an affix is a type of morpheme. Examples are "un-" or "-ing". It is possible for a morpheme to have just one phoneme (or just one character in written English). For example in British English the morpheme "-er" is (often) a single phoneme /ə/ and the prefix "a-" is a single letter.

So an affix may be formed from a single phoneme. But you are mixing different levels of language and can become confused.

In the case of "-oh" It is actually two phonemes /əʊ/. It isn't a common suffix in English. There is a suffix "-o" which forms colloquial forms, like "kiddo". But not "thato" or "gameo".

Sounds are sounds. Sounds as recognised by speakers of a language are phonemes. For example [r] and [l] have different sounds, and are different phonemes in English. But in Japanese they are the same phoneme. Japanese speakers literally can't hear a difference between fly and fry or right and light. And phonemes aren't morphemes. Morphemes are elements that can be combined to make a word. "-ing" is a morpheme so is "un-" and so is "cat". When you combine one or more morphemes to make a word, and then one or more words to make a sentence: then you have "meaning". And if you interpret that sentence in context, you have understanding!

  • What am I mixing up? Do all suffixes have meaning? And aren’t sounds phonemes? Apr 22 '21 at 17:18
  • I've edited to address this. Sounds aren't phonenemes, and suffixes gain meaning by being placed in words which are placed in sentences, which are interpreted in context.
    – James K
    Apr 22 '21 at 19:58
  • I thought “oh” would be one phoneme. Isn’t 'oh' one phoneme? Or why do you think 'oh' isn’t one phoneme? Apr 27 '21 at 7:14
  • "oh" is dipthong, a blend of two phonemes, in most pronunciations. But the fact I need to mention "pronunciation" indicates how the phonemic and phonetic structure of the language are at a level below the morphological structure.
    – James K
    Apr 27 '21 at 8:56
  • Aren’t diphthongs one sound? And I thought “oh” and “o” are the same sound so aren’t they the same sound? May 6 '21 at 18:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .