# Conversamos (sílabas)



## Julia0406

Hola,

Quisiera saber, como se analizan esta palabra por dentro : conversamos


Es así? : con-versa-mos ? 

Por favor si alguien tiene alguna idea...?


----------



## Sapein

A nivel silábico la palabra se divide en 4 sílabas con - ver - sa -mos
Ahora, el verbo en infinitivo se divide en 3: con - ver - sar
El verbo viene del Latín, conversare y está compuesto por el prefijo "con" que significa completamente, globalmente y "versare" que significa dar vueltas, girar


----------



## Wandering JJ

Sapein said:


> A nivel silábico la palabra se divide en 4 sílabas con - ver - sa -mos
> Ahora, el verbo en infinitivo se divide en 3: con - ver - sar
> El verbo viene del Latín, conversare y está compuesto por el prefijo "con" que significa completamente, globalmente y "versare" que significa dar vueltas, girar



The 'con' part in Latin meant _with, near, together, _etc, not _completamente._


----------



## Julia0406

Y morfologicamente? con-ver-sa-mos ? si tengo que devidir los morfos de la palabra


----------



## Julia0406

entonces la manera correcta es: con-ver-sa-mos ?

y una pregunta más , igual a esta, hablamos... si entendi correctamente, entonces seria asi : habl-a-mos ?

muchas gracias!


----------



## elchinitovaliente

Julia0406 said:


> entonces la manera correcta es: con-ver-sa-mos ?
> 
> y una pregunta más , igual a esta, hablamos... si entendi correctamente, entonces seria asi : habl-a-mos ?
> 
> muchas gracias!




ha - bla - mos


----------



## Sapein

Si dividimos hablamos en sílabas nos quedaría: ha - bla - mos. Otra vez, hablamos proviene del verbo hablar, que también proviene del latín "fabulare".
De todas formas a nivel de morfemas, creo que no es igual. El lexema de hablamos, es habl y el granema si no me equivoco es amos, ya que el último es el que define género, número y tiempo.
De esto último no estoy 100% seguro, ya que no soy lingüista.


----------



## Wandering JJ

Convers - lexema (no presenta morfemas garamaticales)
a - vocal temática
mos - morferma de primera persona del plural del presente de indicativo


----------



## Julia0406

Wandering JJ said:


> Convers - lexema (no presenta morfemas garamaticales)
> a - vocal temática
> mos - morferma de primera persona del plural del presente de indicativo




Gracias! entonces hablamos va a ser igual? habl-a-mos


----------



## Wandering JJ

Yo creo que sí.
Un saludo.


----------



## sal62

*Ha-bla- mos.* es el silabeo correcto. en el caso de conversar, como dijo wanderinjj: con significa reunido (gathered, together) aunque también por completo versare que significa dar vueltas, volear y versus= contra, o sea: oponernos pero juntos, poner ideas en *con*frontación.
Una cosa es el análisis demántico o etimológico y otra cosa es el silabeo.


----------



## brifranc142

A la pregunta original:

Creo que los morfemas serían con-vers-amos, no con-versa-mos o con-ver-sa-mos, porque el último morfema empieza con la vocal que sigue la s. Por ejemplo y por contraste, sería "yo converso." O sea, hay tres morfemas (fíjese que los morfemas tienen que ser semánticamente significativo): 

1. con (with)
2. vers (speak)
3. amos (second person, present tense)

Porque ese -amos se puede cambiar por -o, o -é, la a de amos es un rasgo variable dentro de la morfema de tiempo verbal. 

Disculpe si eso le resultó confuso, ya es tarde aquí.


----------



## juandiego

brifranc142 said:


> A la pregunta original:
> 
> Creo que los morfemas serían con-vers-amos, no con-versa-mos o con-ver-sa-mos, porque el último morfema empieza con la vocal que sigue la s. Por ejemplo y por contraste, sería "yo converso." O sea, hay tres morfemas (fíjese que los morfemas tienen que ser semánticamente significativo):
> 
> 1. con (with)
> 2. vers (speak)
> 3. amos (second person, present tense)
> 
> Porque ese -amos se puede cambiar por -o, o -é, la a de amos es un rasgo variable dentro de la morfema de tiempo verbal.
> 
> Disculpe si eso le resultó confuso, ya es tarde aquí.


Hola brifranc.

 I'm not sure, I don't know how right is to include the etymological morphemes that formed a current lexeme. I mean, _conversar_ comes from the Latin term _conversare,_ so, regardless how this latter was originally formed, it has evolved into Spanish as a whole with a particular meaning.

I think they are just two: convers-amos.


----------



## Wandering JJ

juandiego said:


> Hola brifranc.
> 
> I'm not sure, I don't know how right is to include the etymological morphemes that formed a current lexeme. I mean, _conversar_ comes from the Latin term _conversare,_ so, regardless how this latter was originally formed, it has evolved into Spanish as a whole with a particular meaning.
> 
> I think they are just two: convers-amos.


No, because the 'a' of 'amos' could be an 'e' or 'i' with other verbs. See my post #8.


----------



## brifranc142

@juandiego, The existence of the verb "versar" makes me think it's three morphemes, because the addition of "con" changes the meaning. I see your point, but I'd still call it three.


----------



## flljob

Desde un punto de vista etimológico, tienes razón; pero desde un punto de vista puramente morfológico, yo las dividiría así:
convers-a-mos
habl-a-mos


----------



## juandiego

Wandering JJ said:


> No, because the 'a' of 'amos' could be an 'e' or 'i' with other verbs. See my post #8.


Ok, Wandering JJ, but is a _vocal temática_ an independent morpheme or is included in the inflectional morpheme? For any given lexeme there's only one way of inflection therefore it's not independent, it's always ruled by the lexeme. It doesn't add any meaning, ¿doesn't a morpheme need to convey a meaning?

*mor·pheme* 
 A meaningful linguistic unit consisting of a word, such as _man_, or a word element, such as _-ed_ in _walked_, that cannot be divided into smaller meaningful parts. 

I am not too familiarized with this matter of morphological analysis but perhaps this should be dealt with successive subdivisions as in a syntactical one?


----------



## Forero

juandiego said:


> Ok, Wandering JJ, but is a _vocal temática_ an independent morpheme or is included in the inflectional morpheme? For any given lexeme there's only one way of inflection therefore it's not independent, it's always ruled by the lexeme. It doesn't add any meaning, ¿doesn't a morpheme need to convey a meaning?
> 
> *mor·pheme*
> A meaningful linguistic unit consisting of a word, such as _man_, or a word element, such as _-ed_ in _walked_, that cannot be divided into smaller meaningful parts.
> 
> I am not too familiarized with this matter of morphological analysis but perhaps this should be dealt with successive subdivisions as in a syntactical one?


There are several morphemes here that do not correspond well with word segments, but in present tense the _a_ rather than _e_ indicates indicative and the _mos_ indicates first person plural.  And in _pretérito indefinido_ you need a morpheme to convert vocal temática _e_ to _i_ before _mos_.


----------



## juandiego

brifranc142 said:


> @juandiego, The existence of the verb "versar" makes me think it's three morphemes, because the addition of "con" changes the meaning. I see your point, but I'd still call it three.


 I also see yours, brifranc, and frankly I can't be sure of mine. One last point, though: hardly the verb _versar_ means to speak in Spanish, it might be in some specific context but it doesn't in general (to be about, to be knowledgeable —See _versar_ on the DRAE).


----------



## juandiego

Forero said:


> There are several morphemes here that do not correspond well with word segments, but in present tense the _a_ rather than _e_ indicates indicative and the _mos_ indicates first person plural.  And in _pretérito indefinido_ you need a morpheme to convert vocal temática _e_ to _i_ before _mos_.


Hi Forero.
If I understand what a _vocal temática_ is (inferred from the infinitive endings -ar,-er,-ir), I gather that then it's not so, but a fundamental part of the inflection since it helps clarify both tense and mood. On the other hand, those vocals per se cannot convey tense and mood since they could be different for other person cases (Yo convers-*o*).

 Again, I'm not sure of my points, just guessing from the strict meaning of morpheme. I need to read more on this matter.


----------



## Julia0406

Whoa, thanks for all the replies. But I still didn't understand the right answer 

so in conversamos it's : convers-a-mos or con-vers-a-mos ?
and hablamos: habl-a-mos ?


----------



## chamyto

Yes, because from _convers_ and _habl_ you can form the rest of the verbal forms.


----------



## Julia0406

So in the case of conversamos, con and ver shouldn't be divided from each other? because con- doesnt form any word, and neither does ver- , on its own, right?


----------



## chamyto

Julia0406 said:


> So in the case of conversamos, con and ver shouldn't be divided from each other? because con- doesnt form any word, and neither does ver- , on its own, right?



The only I can tell you is that from the infinitive split the ar/er/ir (this would not apply at all with irregular verbs) and from the verbal root you can form the rest of the forms. 
We have conversar (to have a conversation) and the root is _convers ._Would you omit "con" in conversation as well? Hope it helps.


----------



## Julia0406

chamyto said:


> The only I can tell you is that from the infinitive split the ar/er/ir (this would not apply at all with irregular verbs) and from the verbal root you can form the rest of the forms.
> We have conversar (to have a conversation) and the root is _convers ._Would you omit "con" in conversation as well? Hope it helps.




Thanks! youve also answered before on one of my threads with the word "mañanas"... in this case, what words can come out of the lexema- "mañan-" or will it stay like that : mañan-a-s?


----------



## chamyto

Julia0406 said:


> Thanks! youve also answered before on one of my threads with the word "mañanas"... in this case, what words can come out of the lexema- "mañan-" or will it stay like that : mañan-a-s?



From mañan you can form the rest of the forms. Bear in mind that it's ages since I last studied (lexema/morfema) this at the High school, but I think I'm not wrong.


----------



## Julia0406

chamyto said:


> From mañan you can form the rest of the forms. Bear in mind that it's ages since I last studied (lexema/morfema) this at the High school, but I think I'm not wrong.



Thanks, hmm... is mañanita a word or am I completely wrong?


----------



## chamyto

Julia0406 said:


> Thanks, hmm... is mañanita a word or am I completely wrong?



Check this, it's in the RAE: http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=mañanita


----------

