Talk:Morphophonology

message: Aren't a/an, the/"thee" and to/"too" also examples? A book, an apple. The book, "thee" apple. To ("t'") go, to ("too") ask. --Kjoonlee 07:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All illustrate the point. However, orthographically a/an is simply phonemic (or at least as close to phonemic as you can get with English), since the "underlying" form is not written, while the, etc. are orthographically morphophonemic. kwami (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is an alternation in the morpheme "a/an." It could be said that the UR is /æ/, with the rule /æ/ -> [æn] /__[vowel]. Because this doesn't happen with the phoneme æ everywhere, it's shown that this is actually a property of the morpheme "a/an." That's a morphophonemic alternation if I ever seen one. Um, and as for the/thee and to/too? Those are just random homophones, guys. They don't have any morphological relationship. True (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

text: No, it's a plural morpheme, not a plural phoneme. The plural morpho-phoneme is //z// (or //s//, if you prefer). It is realized as one of two phonemes, /s/ after voiceless sounds, and /z/ elsewhere. /s/ and /z/ are separate phonemes in English; they aren't allophones as [s] and [z] are in Spanish. Those phonemes will in turn be realized as different allophones: the /s/ after /k/ is slightly different than the /s/ after /t/. — kwami (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: English examples

message: Most of the body of this article (the "Morphophonemic Analysis" section) seems to come word for word from Hayes' book. It also seems to be too detailed and "methodological" for an encyclopedia entry. Suggest we rewrite it, and also try to incorporate other approaches than just this one.--Victor Yus (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright issue

message: There is a claim on the main page that the IPA uses Pipes, I marked this as needing and inline citation. This is in addition to the large banner over the article indicating a need for more inline citations. Frankly I have looked through the handbook of the IPAInternational Phonetic Association. 1999. Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: a guide to the use of the international phonetic alphabet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. and find no references to the IPA using pipes <||>. I have seen this notation before, I acknowledge that it exists. However, I do not think the source is actually the IPA. I am open to discussion on this and hopefully someone can provide a citation. But in the interest of accuracy This claim needs to be removed, unless proven otherwise.
From main page: "In the International Phonetic Alphabet, pipes (| |) are often used to indicate a morphophonemic rather than phonemic representation. Another common convention is double slashes (// //), as above, implying that the transcription is 'more phonemic than simply phonemic'. Other conventions sometimes seen are double pipes (|| ||) and curly brackets ({ })."
Hugh Paterson III (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate claims 

message: Why were the two categories, morphology and phonology, erased?  Is it because morphophonology already includes the two? 
But then when looking for articles on morphology I won't find morphophonolgy itself, which is definately an article of those two broader topics. No? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not category morphology and phonology