zyma wrote: ↑28 Sep 2024 14:40
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but the wording of your response gives me pause. So, just to be safe: is the plural morpheme in question -(o)s?
The plural morpheme is indeed -s. However, the word without this plural morpheme does not exist.
zyma wrote: ↑28 Sep 2024 14:40
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but the wording of your response gives me pause. So, just to be safe: is the plural morpheme in question -(o)s?
The plural morpheme is indeed -s. However, the word without this plural morpheme does not exist.
I appreciate the clarification!
Is it a verb-object compound, like Spanish espantapájaros?
zyma wrote: ↑28 Sep 2024 14:40
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but the wording of your response gives me pause. So, just to be safe: is the plural morpheme in question -(o)s?
The plural morpheme is indeed -s. However, the word without this plural morpheme does not exist.
I appreciate the clarification!
Is it a verb-object compound, like Spanish espantapájaros?
zyma wrote: ↑28 Sep 2024 14:40
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but the wording of your response gives me pause. So, just to be safe: is the plural morpheme in question -(o)s?
The plural morpheme is indeed -s. However, the word without this plural morpheme does not exist.
I appreciate the clarification!
Is it a verb-object compound, like Spanish espantapájaros?
Lovely!
Is the division between the verb and its object eperèite-garetos?