I’m taking an introductory linguistics class this semester, and I’m trying really hard to remind myself that just because I read linguistics-related threads on the SDMB doesn’t mean that I know everything about the topic. That said, I’m starting to think that the professor is giving the class incorrect information, or is at least conveying information poorly. Reading over a study guide she wrote for an upcoming test is what prompted me to start this thread.
Her instructions on how to break down a word into its constituent morphemes is what raised my eyebrow. Essentially, she has told us to ignore etymology and to break down words based on “today’s roots,” whatever that means. For instance, she considers identify a free lexical root and therefore, apparently, entirely unrelated to words like identity because ident is not a word (or to quote her study guide, “because ident- does not have a meaning in and of itself in English today”). I, on the other hand, argue that ident is a bound lexical root, and that identity and identify are derivative stems. I don’t see how one can examine a word’s morphology without giving any consideration to its etymology. So, what’s the straight dope?
As an aside, if I am in fact correct here, what recourse do I have?