Education of the republic of uzbekistan state world languages university english faculty

2.3. Suffixation: classification of suffixes and their productivity
Suffixes with neutral stylistic reference may occur in words of different lexicostylistic layers e.g. agreeable, cf. steerable (steerable spaceship); dancer, cf. transmitter, squealer; 1 meeting, cf. monitoring (the monitoring of digestive processes in the body), etc. As for suffixes of the second class they are restricted in use to quite definite lexico-stylistic layers of words, in particular to terms, e.g. rhomboid, asteroid, cruciform, cyclotron, synchrophasotron, etc. 5) Suffixes are also classified as to the degree of their productivity. The morpheme, and therefore affix, which is a type of morpheme, is generally defined as the smallest indivisible component of the word possessing a meaning of its own. Meanings of affixes are specific and considerably differ from those of root morphemes. Affixes have widely generalised meanings and refer the concept conveyed by the whole word to a certain category, which is vast and all embracing. So, the noun-forming suffix -er could be roughly defined as designating persons from the object of their occupation or labour (painter — the one who paints} or from their place of origin or abode (southerner — the one living in the South). The adjective-forming suffix -ful has the meaning of "full of, "characterised by" (beautiful, careful) whereas -ish may often imply insufficiency of quality (greenish — green, but not quite; youngish — not quite young but looking it). Such examples might lead one to the somewhat hasty conclusion that the meaning of a derived word is always a sum of the meanings of its morphemes: un/eat/able = "not fit to eat" where not stands for un- and fit for -able. There are numerous derived words whose meanings can really be easily deduced from the meanings of their constituent parts. Yet, such cases represent only the first and simplest stage of semantic readjustment within derived words. The constituent morphemes within derivatives do not always preserve their current meanings and are open to subtle and complicated semantic shifts. Let us take some of the adjectives formed with the same productive suffix -y, and try to deduce the meaning of the suffix from their dictionary definitions:
brainy (inform.) — intelligent, intellectual, i. e. characterised by brains catty -— quietly or slyly malicious, spiteful, i. e. characterised by features ascribed to a cat chatty — given to chat, inclined to chat dressy (inform.) -— showy in dress, i. e. inclined to dress well or to be overdressed fishy (e. g. in a fishy story, inform.) — improbable, hard to believe (like stories told by fishermen); foxy — foxlike, cunning or crafty, i. e. characterised by features ascribed to a fox; The Random-House Dictionary defines the meaning of the -y suffix as "characterised by or inclined to the substance or action of the root to which the affix is attached”. Some of the listed adjectives have several meanings, but only one is given so as to keep the list manageable. Yet, even the few given examples show that, on the one hand, there are cases, like touchy or fishy that are not covered by the definition. On the other hand, even those cases that are roughly covered, show a wide variety of subtle shades of meaning. It is not only the suffix that adds its own meaning to the meaning of the root, but the suffix is, in its turn, affected by the root and undergoes certain semantic changes, so that the mutual influence of root and affix creates a wide range of subtle nuances. But is the suffix -y probably exceptional in this respect? It is sufficient to examine further examples to see that other affixes also offer an interesting variety of semantic shades. Compare, for instance, the meanings of adjective-forming suffixes in each of these groups of adjectives. 1 . eatable (fit or good to eat), lovable (worthy of loving), questionable (open to doubt, to question) , imaginable (capable of being imagined) 2. lovely (charming, beautiful, i. e. inspiring love), lonely (solitary, without company; lone; - the meaning of the suffix does not seem to add any thing to that of the root) friendly (characteristic of or befitting a friend) heavenly (resembling or befitting heaven; beautiful, splendid) 3. childish (resembling or befitting a child) tallish (rather tall, but not quite, i, e. approaching the quality of being tall).
Another problem of the study of affixes is homonymic affixes. Homonymic affixes are affixes which have the same sound form, spelling but different meanings and they are added to different parts of speech. Ex.-ful (I) forms adjectives from a noun: love (v) — loveful (adj/, man (n), — manful (adj). -ful (2) forms adjective from a verb: forget (ti.) — forgetful, (adj) thank (u.) — thankful (adj), etc. The verb suffix -en (1) added to a noun and adjective stem is homonymous to the adjective forming suffix -en (2) which is added to a noun stem. For example, to strengthen, to soften, and wooden, golden. In the course of the history of English as a result of borrowings there appeared many synonymous affixes in the language. For example, the suffixes er,-or,-ist, -ent,-ant,-eer,-ian,-man, -ee,-ess form synonymous affixes denoting the meaning «agent». Having the meaning of negation the prefixes un-, in-, non-, dis-, mis form synonymic group of prefixes. It is interesting to point out that the synonymous affixes help us to reveal different lexico — semantic groupings of words. E.g., the words formed by the suffixes -man,-er,-or,-ian,-ee,-eer,-ent,-ant etc. belong to the lexico-semantic groupings of words denoting «doer of the action”. The affixes may also undergo semantic changes, they may be polysemantic. For example, the noun forming suffix «-er» has the following meanings: 1) persons following some special trade and profession (driver, teacher, hunter); 2) persons doing a certain action at the moment in question (packer, chooser, giver); 3) tools (blotter, atomizer, boiler, transmitter). Thus, affixes have different characteristic features. The comparative analysis of the English language with other languages showed that English is not so rich in suffixes as, for example, the Uzbek language. The total number of suffixes is 67 in English but the Uzbek suffixes are 171 and, vice versa, prefixation is more typical to the English language than Uzbek.
In Uzbek there are following prefixes: бe-,но-, ба, бо-, ним-. By their origin the Uzbek affixes like English ones are divided into native and borrowed. The suffixes: -чи, -гap, -зop, -лик, -ли, -оқ are native suffixes but. –изм, -ация, -бо, - но,- намо,- ки are of borrowed origin. The affixes may be divided into different semantic groups. These semantic groups of affixes may be different in different languages. For example, diminutive affixes in Uzbek are more than in English (see the table)
As compared with the Uzbek language the negative affixes are more widely used in English. In Uzbek: -сиз (қўлсиз), бe-(6epaҳм), -но (нохуш),In English: less — (handless), a-, an- (anomalous); -un-(unkind) dis-(dislike), anti- (antibiotic), de-(decode), in-(innocent) ir-(ir regular), im-( impossible), non- (nondeductive) Though the number of Uzbek prefixes is very few (they are 8) they are capable of changing words from one part of speech into another. For example, aдaб. (cyщ.) — боадаб (npил.), ҳосил (cyщ.)- cepҳocил (прил.) илож (cyщ.) — ноилож (прил.), бахт (cyщ.) — бебахт (прил.), paнг (cyщ.)— нимранг (прил.). There is a specific group of morphemes whose derivational function does not allow one to refer them unhesitatingly either to the derivational affixes or bases.
In words like half-done, half-broken, half-eaten and ill-fed, ill-housed, illdressed the ICs half- and ill- are given in linguistic literature different interpretations: they are described both as bases and as derivational prefixes. As to their lexical meaning they have become more indicative of a generalising meaning of incompleteness and poor quality than the individual meaning proper to the stems of independent words and thus they function more as affixational morphemes similar to the prefixes out-, over-, under-, semi-, misregularly forming whole classes of words. Besides, the high frequency of these morphemes in the above-mentioned generalised meaning in combination with the numerous bases built on past participles indicates their closer ties with derivational affixes than bases.