The history of atlantis

We put all the big splits on the table.
The study of word-formation and word-structure is called MORPHOLOGY. Morphological theory provides a general theory of word-structure in all the languages of the world. Its task is to characterize the kinds of things that speakers need to know about the structure of the words of their language in order to be able to use them to produce and to understand speech.
We will see that in order to use language, speakers need to have two types of morphological knowledge. First, they need to be able to analyze existing words (e.g. they must be able to tell that frogs contains frog plus -s for plural). Usually, if we know the meanings of the elements that a word contains, it is possible to determine the meaning of the entire word once we have worked out how the various elements relate to each other. For instance, if we examine a word like nutcracker we find that it is made up of two words, namely the noun nut and the noun cracker. Furthermore, we see that the latter word, cracker is divisible into the verb crack and another meaningful element (roughly meaning an instrument used to do X'), which, however, is not a word in its own right. Numerous other words are formed using this pattern of combining words (and smaller meaningful elements) as seen in [1.3]:
[1.3]
[Tea]Noun [strainer]] Noun [lawn] Noun [mower]] Noun [can] Noun [opener]] Noun
Given the frame [[Nounler]] Noun, we can fill in different words with the appropriate properties and get another compound word (i.e. a word containing at least two words). Try this frame out yourself. Find two more similar examples of compound words formed using this pattern.
Second, speakers need to be able to work out the meanings of novel words constructed using the word- building elements and standard word-construction rules of the language.

Probably we all know and use more words than are listed in dictionaries. We can construct and analyze the structure and meaning of old words as well as new ones. So, although many words must be listed in the dictionary and memorized, listing every word in the dictionary is not necessary. If a word is formed following general principles, it may be more efficient to reconstitute it from its constituent elements as the need arises rather than permanently commit it to memory. When people make up new words using existing words and word forming elements, we understand them with ease-providing we know what the elements they use to form those words mean and providing the word-forming rules that they employ are familiar. This ability is one of the things explored in morphological investigations.

In an average week, we are likely to encounter a couple of unfamiliar words. We might reach for a dictionary and look them up. Some of them may be listed but others might be too new or too ephemeral to have found their way into any dictionary. In such an event, we rely on our morphological knowledge to tease out their meanings. If you heard someone describe their partner as 'a great list maker and a ticker-off, you would instantly know what sort of person the partner was-although you almost certainly have never encountered the word ticker-off before. And it is certainly not listed in any dictionary. There ending here has.

20 CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF A MORPHEMIC KIND [3.2]

childish hopeless sooner mended elephants re-boil unsafe ex-wife
You would have to give a different answer. You would need to tell your interrogator, who by now would be getting increasingly bewildered, that the words in [3.2] can be divided into smaller units of meaning as shown in [3.3]:
[3.3]
child-ish hope-less soon-er mend-ed elephant-s re-boil un-safe ex-wife
The part of the word that is not italicised can function as an independent word in the grammar. Indeed, each of the nonitalicised chunks is a word (i.e. vocabulary item) that is listed as such in the dictionary. By contrast, the italicised bits, though meaningful (and their meanings can be indicated as shown in [3.4]). cannot function on their own in the grammar.
[3.4]

-ish	*having the (objectionable) qualities of	child-ish= 'having the qualities of a child'
-less	'without X	hopeless= 'without hope"
-er	'more X'	sooner= 'more soon
-ed	'past	mended= "mend in the past
-S	'plural	elephants="more than one elephant'
re	'again'	re-boil= 'boil again'
un	'not X'	unsagfe= 'not safe'
ex	*former	ex-wife- former wife'

What we have done to the words in [3.4] can be done to thousands of other words in English. They can be decomposed into smaller units of meaning (e.g. re- *again') or grammatical function (e.g. -ed 'past').