text:
Allophone

In phonology, an allophone (from the Greek ἄλλος, állos, 'other' and φωνή, phōnē, 'voice, sound') is one of multiple possible spoken sounds – or phones – used to pronounce a single phoneme in a particular language. For example, in English, the voiceless plosive (as in stop ) and the aspirated form  (as in top ) are allophones for the phoneme, while these two are considered to be different phonemes in some languages such as Central Thai. Similarly, in Spanish, (as in dolor ) and  (as in nada ) are allophones for the phoneme, while these two are considered to be different phonemes in English (as in the difference between dare and there).

The specific allophone selected in a given situation is often predictable from the phonetic context, with such allophones being called positional variants, but some allophones occur in free variation. Replacing a sound by another allophone of the same phoneme usually does not change the meaning of a word, but the result may sound non-native or even unintelligible.

Native speakers of a given language perceive one phoneme in the language as a single distinctive sound and are "both unaware of and even shocked by" the allophone variations that are used to pronounce single phonemes.

History of concept
The term "allophone" was coined by Benjamin Lee Whorf circa 1929. In doing so, he is thought to have placed a cornerstone in consolidating early phoneme theory. The term was popularized by George L. Trager and Bernard Bloch in a 1941 paper on English phonology and went on to become part of standard usage within the American structuralist tradition.

Complementary and free-variant allophones and assimilation
Whenever a user's speech is vocalized for a given phoneme, it is slightly different from other utterances, even for the same speaker. That has led to some debate over how real and how universal phonemes really are (see phoneme for details). Only some of the variation is significant, by being detectable or perceivable, to speakers.

There are two types of allophones, based on whether a phoneme must be pronounced using a specific allophone in a specific situation or whether the speaker has the unconscious freedom to choose the allophone that is used.

If a specific allophone from a set of allophones that correspond to a phoneme must be selected in a given context, and using a different allophone for a phoneme would cause confusion or make the speaker sound non-native, the allophones are said to be complementary. The allophones then complement each other, and one of them is not used in a situation in which the usage of another is standard. For complementary allophones, each allophone is used in a specific phonetic context and may be involved in a phonological process.

In other cases, the speaker can freely select from free-variant allophones on personal habit or preference, but free-variant allophones are still selected in the specific context, not the other way around.

Another example of an allophone is assimilation, in which a phoneme is to sound more like another phoneme. One example of assimilation is consonant voicing and devoicing, in which voiceless consonants are voiced before and after voiced consonants, and voiced consonants are devoiced before and after voiceless consonants.

Allotone
An allotone is a tonic allophone, such as the neutral tone in Standard Mandarin.

English
There are many allophonic processes in English: lack of plosion, nasal plosion, partial devoicing of sonorants, complete devoicing of sonorants, partial devoicing of obstruents, lengthening and shortening vowels, and retraction.

 * Aspiration: In English, a voiceless plosive is aspirated (has a strong explosion of breath) if it is at the beginning of the first or a stressed syllable in a word. For example,  as in pin and  as in spin are allophones for the phoneme  because they cannot distinguish words (in fact, they occur in complementary distribution). English-speakers treat them as the same sound, but they are different: the first is aspirated and the second is unaspirated (plain). Many languages treat the two phones differently.
 * Nasal plosion: In English, a plosive has nasal plosion if it is followed by a nasal, whether within a word or across a word boundary.
 * Partial devoicing of sonorants: In English, sonorants are partially devoiced after a voiceless sound in the same syllable.
 * Complete devoicing of sonorants: In English, a sonorant is completely devoiced after an aspirated plosive.
 * Partial devoicing of obstruents: In English, a voiced obstruent is partially devoiced next to a pause or next to a voiceless sound within a word or across a word boundary.
 * Retraction: In English, are retracted before.

Because the choice among allophones is seldom under conscious control, few people realize their existence. English-speakers may be unaware of differences between a number of (dialect-dependent) allophones of the phoneme :

 * post-aspirated as in top,
 * unaspirated as in stop.
 * glottalized (or rather substituted by the glottal stop) as in button, but many speakers preserve at least an unreleased coronal stop.

In addition, the following allophones of /t/ are found in (at least) some dialects of American(ised) English;
 * flapped as in American English water,
 * nasal(ized) flapped as in American English winter.
 * unreleased as in American English cat, but other dialects preserve the released, or substitute the glottal stop.

However, speakers may become aware of the differences if – for example – they contrast the pronunciations of the following words:

 * Night rate: unreleased (without a word space between  and )
 * Nitrate: aspirated or retracted

A flame that is held in front of the lips while those words are spoken flickers more for the aspirated nitrate than for the unaspirated night rate. The difference can also be felt by holding the hand in front of the lips. For a Mandarin-speaker, for whom and  are separate phonemes, the English distinction is much more obvious than for an English-speaker, who has learned since childhood to ignore the distinction.

One may notice the (dialect-dependent) allophones of English such as the (palatal) alveolar "light"  of leaf  as opposed to the velar alveolar "dark"  in feel  found in the U.S. and Southern England. The difference is much more obvious to a Turkish-speaker, for whom and  are separate phonemes, than to an English speaker, for whom they are allophones of a single phoneme.

These descriptions are more sequentially broken down in the next section.

Rules for English consonant allophones
Peter Ladefoged, a renowned phonetician, clearly explains the consonant allophones of English in a precise list of statements to illustrate the language behavior. Some of these rules apply to all the consonants of English; the first item on the list deals with consonant length, items 2 through 18 apply to only selected groups of consonants, and the last item deals with the quality of a consonant. These descriptive rules are as follows:
 * 1) Consonants are longer when they come at the end of a phrase. This can be easily tested by recording a speaker saying a sound like "bib", then comparing the forward and backward playback of the recording. One will find that the backward playback does not sound like the forward playback because the production of what is expected to be the same sound is not identical.
 * 2) Voiceless stops  are aspirated when they come at the beginning of a syllable, such as in words like "pip, test, kick" . We can compare this with voiceless stops that are not syllable initial like "stop" [stɑp]. The  voiceless stop follows the  (fricative) here.
 * 3) Voiced obstruents, which include stops and fricatives, such as, that come at the end of an utterance like  in "improve" or before a voiceless sound like  in "add two") are only briefly voiced during the articulation.
 * 4) Voiced stops and affricates  in fact occur as voiceless at the beginning of a syllable unless immediately preceded by a voiced sound, in which the voiced sound carries over.
 * 5) Approximants (in English, these include ) are partially voiceless when they occur after syllable-initial  like in "play, twin, cue".
 * 6) Voiceless stops  are not aspirated when following after a syllable initial fricative, such as in the words "spew, stew, skew."
 * 7) Voiceless stops and affricates  are longer than their voiced counterparts  when situated at the end of a syllable. Try comparing "cap" to "cab" or "back" to "bag".
 * 8) When a stop comes before another stop, the explosion of air only follows after the second stop, illustrated in words like "apt"  and "rubbed".
 * 9) Many English accents produce a glottal stop in syllables that end with voiceless stops. Some examples include pronunciations of "tip, pit, kick".
 * 10) Some accents of English use a glottal stop in place of a  when it comes before an alveolar nasal in the same word (as opposed to in the next word), such as in the word "beaten".
 * 11) Nasals become syllabic, or their own syllable, only when immediately following an obstruent (as opposed to just any consonant), such as in the words "leaden, chasm" . Take in comparison "kiln, film"; in most accents of English, the nasals are not syllabic.
 * 12) The lateral, however, is syllabic at the end of the word when immediately following any consonant, like in "paddle, whistle".
 * 13) When considering  as liquids,  is included in this rule as well as present in the words "sabre, razor, hammer, tailor".
 * 14) Alveolar stops become voiced taps when they occur between two vowels, as long as the second vowel is unstressed. Take for instance mainly American English pronunciations like "fatty, data, daddy, many".
 * 15) When an alveolar nasal is followed by a stop, the  is lost and a nasal tap occurs, causing "winter" to sound just like "winner" or "panting" to sound just like "panning". In this case, both alveolar stops and alveolar nasal plus stop sequences become voiced taps after two vowels when the second vowel is unstressed. This can vary among speakers, where the rule does not apply to certain words or when speaking at a slower pace.
 * 16) All alveolar consonants assimilate to dentals when occurring before a dental. Take the words "eighth, tenth, wealth". This also applies across word boundaries, for example "at this".
 * 17) Alveolar stops are reduced or omitted when between two consonants. Some examples include "most people" (can be written either as  or  with the IPA, where the  is inaudible, and "sand paper, grand master", where the  is inaudible.
 * 18) A consonant is shortened when it is before an identical consonant, such as in "big game" or "top post".
 * 19) A homorganic voiceless stop may be inserted after a nasal before a voiceless fricative followed by an unstressed vowel in the same word. For example, a bilabial voiceless plosive  can be detected in the word "something"  even though it is orthographically not indicated. This is known as epenthesis. However, the following vowel must be unstressed.
 * 20) Velar stops  become more front when the following vowel sound in the same syllable becomes more front. Compare for instance "cap"  vs. "key"  and "gap"  vs. "geese".
 * 21) The lateral  is velarized at the end of a word when it comes after a vowel as well as before a consonant. Compare for example "life"  vs. "file"  or "feeling"  vs. "feel".

Other languages
There are many examples for allophones in languages other than English. Typically, languages with a small phoneme inventory allow for quite a lot of allophonic variation: examples are Hawaiian and Pirahã. Here are some examples (the links of language names go to the specific article or subsection on the phenomenon):
 * Consonant allophones
 * Final devoicing, particularly final-obstruent devoicing: Arapaho, English, Nahuatl, Catalan and many others
 * Voicing of initial consonant
 * Anticipatory assimilation
 * Aspiration changes: Algonquin
 * Frication between vowels: Dahalo
 * Lenition: Manx, Corsican
 * Voicing of clicks: Dahalo

 * Allophones for : Arapaho, Xavante
 * Allophones for : Xavante
 * Allophones for : Bengali
 * Allophones for : Xavante
 * Allophones for : Manam
 * Allophones for : Garhwali
 * and as allophones: a number of Arabic dialects
 * and as allophones: Some dialects of Hawaiian, and some of Mandarin (e.g. Southwestern and Lower Yangtze)
 * Allophones for
 * : Finnish, Spanish and many more.
 * wide range of variation in Japanese (as archiphoneme /N/)
 * Allophones for : Bengali, Xavante
 * Allophones for : Bengali
 * Allophones for : Bengali, Taos
 * and as allophones: Hawaiian
 * Allophones for :
 * and : Hindustani, Hawaiian
 * fricative before unrounded vowels: O'odham
 * Allophones for : Bengali
 * Vowel allophones
 * and are allophones of  and  in closed final syllables in Malay and Portuguese, while  and  are allophones of  and  in Indonesian.
 * as allophones for short, and as allophones for short  in various Arabic dialects (long , , ,  are separate phonemes in most Arabic dialects).
 * Polish
 * Russian
 * Allophones for, and : Nuxálk
 * Vowel/consonant allophones
 * Vowels become glides in diphthongs: Manam

Representing a phoneme with an allophone
Since phonemes are abstractions of speech sounds, not the sounds themselves, they have no direct phonetic transcription. When they are realized without much allophonic variation, a simple broad transcription is used. However, when there are complementary allophones of a phoneme, the allophony becomes significant and things then become more complicated. Often, if only one of the allophones is simple to transcribe, in the sense of not requiring diacritics, that representation is chosen for the phoneme.

However, there may be several such allophones, or the linguist may prefer greater precision than that allows. In such cases, a common convention is to use the "elsewhere condition" to decide the allophone that stands for the phoneme. The "elsewhere" allophone is the one that remains once the conditions for the others are described by phonological rules.

For example, English has both oral and nasal allophones of its vowels. The pattern is that vowels are nasal only before a nasal consonant in the same syllable; elsewhere, they are oral. Therefore, by the "elsewhere" convention, the oral allophones are considered basic, and nasal vowels in English are considered to be allophones of oral phonemes.

In other cases, an allophone may be chosen to represent its phoneme because it is more common in the languages of the world than the other allophones, because it reflects the historical origin of the phoneme, or because it gives a more balanced look to a chart of the phonemic inventory.

An alternative, which is commonly used for archiphonemes, is to use a capital letter, such as /N/ for [m], [n], [ŋ].

In rare cases, a linguist may represent phonemes with abstract symbols, such as dingbats, to avoid privileging any particular allophone.

title: Allophone


text:
Affix

In linguistics, an affix is a morpheme that is attached to a word stem to form a new word or word form. The main two categories are derivational and inflectional affixes. Derivational affixes, such as un-, -ation, anti-, pre- etc, introduce a semantic change to the word they are attached to. Inflectional affixes introduce a syntactic change, such as singular into plural (e.g. -(e)s), or present simple tense into present continuous or past tense by adding -ing, -ed to an English word. All of them are bound morphemes by definition; prefixes and suffixes may be separable affixes.

Adfixes, infixes and their variations
Changing a word by adding a morpheme at its beginning is called prefixation, in the middle is called infixation, and at the end is called suffixation.

Prefix and suffix may be subsumed under the term adfix, in contrast to infix.

When marking text for interlinear glossing, as in the third column in the chart above, simple affixes such as prefixes and suffixes are separated from the stem with hyphens. Affixes which disrupt the stem, or which themselves are discontinuous, are often marked off with angle brackets. Reduplication is often shown with a tilde. Affixes which cannot be segmented are marked with a back slash.

Lexical affixes
Semantically speaking, lexical affixes or semantic affixes, when compared with free nouns, often have a more generic or general meaning, for example, one denoting "water in a general sense" may not have a noun equivalent because all the nouns denote more specific meanings such as "saltwater", "whitewater", etc (while in other cases the lexical suffixes have become grammaticalized to various degrees.) Although they behave as incorporated noun roots/stems within verbs and as elements of nouns, they never occur as freestanding nouns. Lexical affixes are relatively rare and are used in Wakashan, Salishan, and Chimakuan languages — the presence of these is an areal feature of the Pacific Northwest of North America - where they show little to no resemblance to free nouns with similar meanings. Compare the lexical suffixes and free nouns of Northern Straits Saanich written in the Saanich orthography and in Americanist notation:

Some linguists have claimed that these lexical suffixes provide only adverbial or adjectival notions to verbs. Other linguists disagree arguing that they may additionally be syntactic arguments just as free nouns are and, thus, equating lexical suffixes with incorporated nouns. Gerdts (2003) gives examples of lexical suffixes in the Halkomelem language (the word order here is verb–subject–object):

 * {| class="IPA wikitable"

 * - style="line-height: 1.0em; font-size: 75%"
 * style="background: #bbbbff" | VERB
 * style="background: #ffebad" | SUBJ
 * style="background: #ffbbbb" | OBJ
 * (1)
 * niʔ
 * šak’ʷ-ət-əs
 * łə słeniʔ
 * łə qeq
 * colspan="4" | "the woman washed the baby "
 * - style="line-height: 1.0em; font-size: 75%"
 * bgcolor=white colspan=5|
 * - style="line-height: 1.0em; font-size: 75%"
 * style="background: #bbbbff" | VERB +LEX.SUFF
 * style="background: #ffebad" | SUBJ
 * (2)
 * niʔ
 * šk’ʷ -əyəł
 * łə słeniʔ
 * colspan="4" | "the woman baby -washed"
 * }
 * style="background: #ffebad" | SUBJ
 * (2)
 * niʔ
 * šk’ʷ -əyəł
 * łə słeniʔ
 * colspan="4" | "the woman baby -washed"
 * }
 * colspan="4" | "the woman baby -washed"
 * }
 * colspan="4" | "the woman baby -washed"
 * }
 * }

In sentence (1), the verb "wash" is šak’ʷətəs where šak’ʷ- is the root and -ət and -əs are inflectional suffixes. The subject "the woman" is łə słeniʔ and the object "the baby" is łə qeq. In this sentence, "the baby" is a free noun. (The niʔ here is an auxiliary, which can be ignored for explanatory purposes.)

In sentence (2), "baby" does not appear as a free noun. Instead it appears as the lexical suffix -əyəł which is affixed to the verb root šk’ʷ- (which has changed slightly in pronunciation, but this can also be ignored here). The lexical suffix is neither "the baby" (definite) nor "a baby" (indefinite); such referential changes are routine with incorporated nouns.

Orthographic affixes
In orthography, the terms for affixes may be used for the smaller elements of conjunct characters. For example, Maya glyphs are generally compounds of a main sign and smaller affixes joined at its margins. These are called prefixes, superfixes, postfixes, and subfixes according to their position to the left, on top, to the right, or at the bottom of the main glyph. A small glyph placed inside another is called an infix. Similar terminology is found with the conjunct consonants of the Indic alphabets. For example, the Tibetan alphabet utilizes prefix, suffix, superfix, and subfix consonant letters.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Affix


text:
Talk:Affix

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thomas J. Trommald. Peer reviewers: GESAVI, Lex simthe, Greenechris11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

word form
Depending on the affix and the base morpheme several affixes may be needed to form a complete word form.

list of affixes
I just added a list of affixes, but then it occurred to me that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Maybe it should get removed  :-( SebastianHelm 18:43 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes, I include the affixes in wiktionary. Correct the misspellings, please.

MORE DEFINITIONS ARE NEEDED
I've corrected a whole bunch of Hispanicisms in the list of suffixes, which are actually noun combining forms, not suffixes. Would you please add more definitions?

redirects & suffix
Question: Is it a problem that there are pages for prefixes, infixes, and circumfixes, but that suffixes get redirected to affixes? It seems a little, I don't know, inequitable.कुक्कुरोवाच 04:23, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

more
this page obviously needs examples from other languages, esp. since English does not really give good examples of some types. peace – ishwar  (speak)  13:52, 2005 July 18 (UTC)

Dimunutives etc.
I plan to start a page called Dimunutive suffix pretty soon and it will include info from English, Latin, Ancient Greek and Spanish as these are the languages where I can contribute the most. Please add info from other languages if you can. There is a lot of info concerning affixes which is sadly missing from wiki.--Hraefen 00:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

exemples from Spanish and Catalan
Please, add them if you like

prefix:pre- des- contra- sufix: -er -ero - ista - aire infix: -et- -all-

Interfix?
Um...does the term "interfix" actually exist? From searches I don't think it does, but I'm going to ask a professor to verify. If not it should be taken out. --Grenadier 20:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

 * hi. Yes, it exists. Interfixes are problemmatic. They are basically meaningless linking elements that occur between 2 components of a compound word. They might sometimes be called linking phonemes or something to that effect. Because they are meaningless they are known as "empty" morphemes (which is, obviously, something of a contradiction — hence they are problemmatic to analyze, especially in a traditional analysis).

 * They are well-known in Germanic languages, so you could search for both interfix and Germanic. Here are some examples from German from Bauer (2003) (since I dont know German):

 * Arbeit + Anzug → Arbeit-s-anzug "work clothes"
 * Geburt + Jahr → Geburt-s-jahr "year of birth"
 * Liebe + Brief →Liebe-s-brief "love letter"
 * Verbindung + Tür → Verbindung-s-tür

 * The interfix above is -s- (note the hyphens dont appear in German spelling). You may be able to figure out that historically some interfixes actually meant something (e.g. they may have previously been plural or possessive affixes), but not necessarily. But, in the modern languages they are just elements that must be there, but they dont add any meaning. – ishwar  (speak)  21:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

affix is by definition bound morpheme?
The intro to the article states that affixes are by definition bound morphemes, but the morpheme article gives the example of the free morphene -able. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.23.4.23 (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I think it's correct to say affixes are bound by definition for the time being as examples of free morphemes that act as affixes are few and far between, and their statuses are surely still debatable. For instance, suggesting that "separable affixes" are indeed affixes very much depends on the morphological theory one subscribes to. Likewise, so-called infixes like "abso-freaking-lutely" are arguably not infixes at all depending on the theory one subscribes to. Perhaps just saying that all affixes are bound is an oversimplification, but I think adding fringe examples as evidence that they are not all bound confuses the definition and weakens its usefulness for classification. Joshisanonymous (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

stem or root
This entire article seems to use the term "stem" where the articles on stem (linguistics) and root (linguistics) say the term "root" would be appropriate. Is this a difference in conventions, or is this article being imprecise? Joriki (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

 * "Stem" is correct, and consistent with what is said in the other articles, as far as I can see. CapnPrep (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't think it's consistent with the other articles. The affix article says that "An affix is a morpheme that is attached to a word stem to form a new word. Affixes may be derivational, like English -ness and pre-, or inflectional, like English plural -s and past tense -ed." By contrast, the articles on stem (linguistics) and root (linguistics) say that the stem is what inflectional affixes are attached to and the root is what derivational and inflectional affixes are attached to. While the article on root (linguistics) says that "root" is sometimes used instead of "stem", neither article says that "stem" is sometimes used instead of "root". So the use of "stem" for something that derivational affixes are attached to appears inconsistent with these articles. Or am I missing something? Joriki (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

 * The definition given in Word stem needs to be expanded (with sources) to include derivational morphology. (Root (linguistics) also lacks basic references.) There are lots of partially overlapping definitions floating around, and so there is some confusion/interchangeability between the two terms. This is usually harmless, but the terminology adopted in this article is better for talking about alternations like destroy·ed vs. destruc·tion (they share the same root, but have distinct stems). I.e. "root" is a more abstract, semantic, historical notion.
 * If your general point is that all three of these articles need more work, I agree 100%. CapnPrep (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree about the articles needing more work. But it's not just a matter of expanding Word stem to include derivational morphology -- the article isn't merely failing to say something on that subject, it explicitly says that derivational morphemes are part of the stem -- so it uses a definition of "stem" that's incompatible with the one being used here, and a decision needs to be made which of the two to use. You may well be right that the one adopted here is better; I don't know much about the subject. Joriki (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

 * A root is a monomorphemic stem. Each time an affix is added, the result is a stem. So narrate is a root; it is the stem of narration, which in turn is the stem of narrations. kwami (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

 * That's a nice succinct explanation. But would you agree that it contradicts some of the statements in the article on stem (linguistics)? There it says "a stem is the part of a word that is common to all its inflected variants" and "a stem is that part of a word that inflectional affixes attach to". According to your definition (which makes sense to me), a word contains several stems, and some of them have derivational, not inflectional affixes attached to them. Joriki (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Kwami's definition is very precise and the articles need work so that it is clarified. "Roots" are monomorphemic.  Once you add a derivational affix to a root, you have a stem.  You can add affixes (either derivational or inflectional) to either roots or stems.  There is an implicit understanding among linguists that when one says "add to stems" it is a shortcut for "add to roots or stems".  That would imply that "roots" is a subset of "stems", but monomorphemic forms are not secondary to derived forms--it's just a linguistic shorthand.  (Taivo (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

 * The way I've always thought of it is that both root and stem refer to what you add on to. A root is what you get when you go all the way to the core; a stem is each step of the way. I don't know if maybe technically a root is not a kind of stem, as Taivo puts it; I always assumed that a root was the "first stem".

 * Ah no, wait. A root may be an independent word, which is not a requirement of being a stem? Taivo, in destabilize, would you say that stabil- is a stem, but not a root, which would be stable? kwami (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I don't get the stable example. (I didn't sleep well last night.)  But "independent word" is not part of the definition of either root or stem.  It's language-dependent.  "Am-" is a root in Latin, but it's never an independent word (amo, amas, amat, etc.).  OK, now I think I understand, "stable" and "stabil-" are identical (just spelling differences)--they are the root "stable", which changes spelling for "stability", "stabilize", etc.  The adverb is spelled "stably" and there is another adjective spelling "stabile".  (Taivo (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
 * And remember the "cran-" morphemes in English--roots without independent forms--such as "-ceive", "huckle-", "cran-", etc. (Taivo (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

 * I never thought of any of those as roots. Actually, "root" isn't a word I use very much. It's pretty much either 'morpheme' or 'stem'. Okay, would the root be the set stable/stabil/etc. (which are phonemically distinct, as in stability) depending on derivation, with each of those forms being considered a separate stem? I'm trying to think why 'root' would not be a subset of 'stem'. kwami (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Here's the basic clade: morphemes are either roots or affixes (realizing that "affix" is a rather broader term that encompasses processes as well as physical -fixes).  Stems are roots plus derivational affixes.  Some authors use "stem" as a base for inflectional affixation, which means that "stems" can include both roots and stems, but I see that as more of a shortcut for "roots and stems".  Since "root" is the base of the tree as the primary unit of lexical meaning, that's why I don't like to talk about them as a subset of "stems".  Instead I see "stem" as something more like an augmented "root".  So, basically, every lexical word must start with a root, to which are added any derivational and inflectional affixes (or other roots in compounding).  Thus, -ceive is the root to which can be added the derivational prefixes re-, per-, de-, con-, etc.  (Taivo (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

I've edited word stem to reflect the different uses of the term, with a reference for each main usage. (Whether the root itself counts as a stem seems like a minor variation compared to the more fundamental question whether a stem is anything that affixes can be attached to, or the part of a word that inflectional affixes are attached to.) What do you think? Joriki (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-affixation
The following terms need some references: Duplifix, Simulfix, and Suprafix. These are not called affixes in the literature, but are almost always called derivational or inflectional processes. I've never seen the "fix" terms for these because they don't involve adding a physical morpheme. They are phonological processes that have semantic content (thus their relevance in morphology), but they are not affixes. "Disfix" should also be considered a phonological process, but since it at least has a reference at disfix and a linguist has used the term, then it can slide. I've also seen reduplication talked about as a "morpheme" with an empty phonological shape that is filled by the phonology of the root, but not with the term "Duplifix". Since these three things I've mentioned above are almost always treated not as morphemes, but as processes, then they should be removed from this article since "affix" is a kind of morpheme. I can be convinced otherwise if there is some reliable (linguistic) literature on the topic. (Taivo (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

saxomaphone?
really? saxo-ma-phone is the best example of infix that anyone could come up with? Is everyone editing this page a morpheme addict or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.251.194.24 (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

 * In all my years of being a native speaker of English, I have never heard of a form like saxo-ma-phone or any other use of "ma" as an infix. --Taivo (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Arguably the best known infix in the English language is -fucking- as intensifier, but using that as an example might be pushing it. :-)  — Coren (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We already cite one of the polite forms of the -f...in'- infix--"Minne-flippin'-sota". --Taivo (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Although I dislike the example by default, because it's tmesis, not an actual infix. (Unless tmesis counts as infixing) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.5.132 (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.108.233.250 (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Lists
In redirecting Prefix (linguistics) to here, the list of English prefixes and their meanings has been lost. Though I don't think the list would fit here, I think the article should be resurrected for that reason.--Jcvamp (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Confix / Circumfix
What is the proper term? We have both confix and circumfix, but no indication as to which is more commonly used or more generally accepted. The confix article seems to have been mainly written with Indonesian and Malaysian in mind, while the circumfix article has examples from German and also mentions other languages with this kind of affix. Which is correct, and should they be merged? Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Circumfix is the only term I've encountered among the languages I work with. The confix article should be merged with circumfix.  --Taivo (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I first saw confix, but I am studying in Indonesia so that might be why. I will nominate confix to be merged into circumfix. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, you already did. Will add my two cents. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Floating features as grammatical morphemes
Forgive me if I have missed how these phenomena are already included in the typology of affixes here.

How should we classify morphemes that are floating tones?

More challenging, and less well known, there are other, non-tonal, floating features that act as morphemes. James Roberts has compiled a number of examples from various African languages and published an article on morphemes that are non-tonal floating features. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED375649.pdf

As an example, voicing is used to mark a noun class in Aka. How should this be classified? Pete unseth (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Affix


text:
Allegory

As a literary device or artistic form, an allegory is a narrative or visual representation in which a character, place, or event can be interpreted to represent a meaning with moral or political significance. Authors have used allegory throughout history in all forms of art to illustrate or convey complex ideas and concepts in ways that are comprehensible or striking to its viewers, readers, or listeners.

Writers and speakers typically use allegories to convey (semi-) hidden or complex meanings through symbolic figures, actions, imagery, or events, which together create the moral, spiritual, or political meaning the author wishes to convey. Many allegories use personification of abstract concepts.

Etymology

First attested in English in 1382, the word allegory comes from Latin allegoria, the latinisation of the Greek ἀλληγορία (allegoría), "veiled language, figurative", literally "speaking about something else", which in turn comes from ἄλλος (allos), "another, different" and ἀγορεύω (agoreuo), "to harangue, to speak in the assembly", which originates from ἀγορά (agora), "assembly".

Types
Northrop Frye discussed what he termed a "continuum of allegory", a spectrum that ranges from what he termed the "naive allegory" of the likes of The Faerie Queene, to the more private allegories of modern paradox literature. In this perspective, the characters in a "naive" allegory are not fully three-dimensional, for each aspect of their individual personalities and of the events that befall them embodies some moral quality or other abstraction; the author has selected the allegory first, and the details merely flesh it out.

Classical allegory
The origins of allegory can be traced at least back to Homer in his "quasi-allegorical" use of personifications of, e.g., Terror (Deimos) and Fear (Phobos) at Il. 115 f. The title of "first allegorist", however, is usually awarded to whoever was the earliest to put forth allegorical interpretations of Homer. This approach leads to two possible answers: Theagenes of Rhegium (whom Porphyry calls the "first allegorist," Porph. Quaest. Hom. 1.240.14–241.12 Schrad.) or Pherecydes of Syros, both of whom are presumed to be active in the 6th century B.C.E., though Pherecydes is earlier and as he is often presumed to be the first writer of prose. The debate is complex, since it demands we observe the distinction between two often conflated uses of the Greek verb "allēgoreīn," which can mean both "to speak allegorically" and "to interpret allegorically."

In the case of "interpreting allegorically," Theagenes appears to be our earliest example. Presumably in response to proto-philosophical moral critiques of Homer (e.g., Xenophanes fr. 11 Diels-Kranz ), Theagenes proposed symbolic interpretations whereby the Gods of the Iliad actually stood for physical elements. So, Hephestus represents Fire, for instance (for which see fr. A2 in Diels-Kranz ). Some scholars, however, argue that Pherecydes cosmogonic writings anticipated Theagenes allegorical work, illustrated especially by his early placement of Time (Chronos) in his genealogy of the gods, which is thought to be a reinterpretation of the titan Kronos, from more traditional genealogies.

In classical literature two of the best-known allegories are the Cave in Plato's The Republic (Book VII) and the story of the stomach and its members in the speech of Menenius Agrippa (Livy ii. 32).

Among the best-known examples of allegory, Plato's Allegory of the Cave, forms a part of his larger work The Republic. In this allegory, Plato describes a group of people who have lived chained in a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall (514a–b). The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows, using language to identify their world (514c–515a). According to the allegory, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality, until one of them finds his way into the outside world where he sees the actual objects that produced the shadows. He tries to tell the people in the cave of his discovery, but they do not believe him and vehemently resist his efforts to free them so they can see for themselves (516e–518a). This allegory is, on a basic level, about a philosopher who upon finding greater knowledge outside the cave of human understanding, seeks to share it as is his duty, and the foolishness of those who would ignore him because they think themselves educated enough.

In Late Antiquity Martianus Capella organized all the information a fifth-century upper-class male needed to know into an allegory of the wedding of Mercury and Philologia, with the seven liberal arts the young man needed to know as guests. Also, the Neoplatonic philosophy developed a type of allegorical reading of Homer and Plato.

Biblical allegory
Other early allegories are found in the Hebrew Bible, such as the extended metaphor in Psalm 80 of the Vine and its impressive spread and growth, representing Israel's conquest and peopling of the Promised Land. Also allegorical is Ezekiel 16 and 17, wherein the capture of that same vine by the mighty Eagle represents Israel's exile to Babylon.

Allegorical interpretation of the Bible was a common early Christian practice and continues. For example, the recently re-discovered Fourth Commentary on the Gospels by Fortunatianus of Aquileia has a comment by its English translator: "The principal characteristic of Fortunatianus' exegesis is a figurative approach, relying on a set of concepts associated with key terms in order to create an allegorical decoding of the text."

Medieval allegory
Allegory has an ability to freeze the temporality of a story, while infusing it with a spiritual context. Mediaeval thinking accepted allegory as having a reality underlying any rhetorical or fictional uses. The allegory was as true as the facts of surface appearances. Thus, the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (1302) presents themes of the unity of Christendom with the pope as its head in which the allegorical details of the metaphors are adduced as facts on which is based a demonstration with the vocabulary of logic: "Therefore of this one and only Church there is one body and one head—not two heads as if it were a monster... If, then, the Greeks or others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they necessarily confess that they are not of the sheep of Christ." This text also demonstrates the frequent use of allegory in religious texts during the Mediaeval Period, following the tradition and example of the Bible.

In the late 15th century, the enigmatic Hypnerotomachia, with its elaborate woodcut illustrations, shows the influence of themed pageants and masques on contemporary allegorical representation, as humanist dialectic conveyed them.

The denial of medieval allegory as found in the 12th-century works of Hugh of St Victor and Edward Topsell's Historie of Foure-footed Beastes (London, 1607, 1653) and its replacement in the study of nature with methods of categorisation and mathematics by such figures as naturalist John Ray and the astronomer Galileo is thought to mark the beginnings of early modern science.

Modern allegory
Since meaningful stories are nearly always applicable to larger issues, allegories may be read into many stories which the author may not have recognized. This is allegoresis, or the act of reading a story as an allegory. Examples of allegory in popular culture that may or may not have been intended include the works of Bertolt Brecht, and even some works of science fiction and fantasy, such as The Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis.

The story of the apple falling onto Isaac Newton's head is another famous allegory. It simplified the idea of gravity by depicting a simple way it was supposedly discovered. It also made the scientific revelation well known by condensing the theory into a short tale.

Poetry and fiction
While allegoresis may make discovery of allegory in any work, not every resonant work of modern fiction is allegorical, and some are clearly not intended to be viewed this way. According to Henry Littlefield's 1964 article, L. Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, may be readily understood as a plot-driven fantasy narrative in an extended fable with talking animals and broadly sketched characters, intended to discuss the politics of the time. Yet, George MacDonald emphasized in 1893 that "A fairy tale is not an allegory."

J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is another example of a well-known work mistakenly perceived as allegorical, as the author himself once stated, "...I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned – with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."

Tolkien specifically resented the suggestion that the book's One Ring, which gives overwhelming power to those possessing it, was intended as an allegory of nuclear weapons. He noted that, had that been his intention, the book would not have ended with the Ring being destroyed but rather with an arms race in which various powers would try to obtain such a Ring for themselves. Then Tolkien went on to outline an alternative plot for "Lord of The Rings", as it would have been written had such an allegory been intended, and which would have made the book into a dystopia. While all this does not mean Tolkien's works may not be treated as having allegorical themes, especially when reinterpreted through postmodern sensibilities, it at least suggests that none were conscious in his writings. This further reinforces the idea of forced allegoresis, as allegory is often a matter of interpretation and only sometimes of original artistic intention.

Like allegorical stories, allegorical poetry has two meanings – a literal meaning and a symbolic meaning.

Some unique specimens of allegory can be found in the following works:
 * Edmund Spenser – The Faerie Queene: The several knights in the poem actually stand for several virtues.
 * William Shakespeare – The Tempest: an allegory of the civilisation/barbarism binary as it pertains to colonialism
 * John Bunyan – The Pilgrim's Progress: The journey of the protagonists Christian and Evangelist symbolises the ascension of the soul from earth to Heaven.
 * Nathaniel Hawthorne – Young Goodman Brown: The Devil's Staff symbolises defiance of God. The characters' names, such as Goodman and Faith, ironically serve as paradox in the conclusion of the story.
 * Nathaniel Hawthorne – The Scarlet Letter: The letter represents self-reliance from America's Puritan and conformity.
 * George Orwell – Animal Farm: The pigs stand for political figures of the Russian Revolution.
 * László Krasznahorkai – The Melancholy of Resistance and the film Werckmeister Harmonies: It uses a circus to describe an occupying dysfunctional government.
 * Edgar Allan Poe – The Masque of the Red Death: The story can be read as an allegory for humans' inability to escape death.
 * Arthur Miller – The Crucible: The Salem witch trials are thought to be an allegory for McCarthyism and the blacklisting of Communists in the United States of America.

 * Shel Silverstein – The Giving Tree: The book has been described as an allegory about relationships; between parents and children, between romantic partners, or between humans and the environment.

Art
Some elaborate and successful specimens of allegory are to be found in the following works, arranged in approximate chronological order:
 * Ambrogio Lorenzetti – Allegoria del Buono e Cattivo Governo e loro Effetti in Città e Campagna (c. 1338–1339)
 * Sandro Botticelli – Primavera (c. 1482)
 * Albrecht Dürer – Melencolia I (1514)
 * Bronzino – Venus, Cupid, Folly and Time (c. 1545)
 * The English School's – "Allegory of Queen Elizabeth" (c. 1610)
 * Artemisia Gentileschi – Allegory of Inclination (c. 1620), An Allegory of Peace and the Arts under the English Crown (1638); Self-Portrait as the Allegory of Painting (c. 1638–39)
 * The Feast of Herod with the Beheading of St John the Baptist by Bartholomeus Strobel is also an allegory of Europe in the time of the Thirty Years War, with portraits of many leading political and military figures.
 * Jan Vermeer – Allegory of Painting (c. 1666)
 * Fernand Le Quesne – Allégorie de la publicité
 * Jean-Léon Gérôme – Truth Coming Out of Her Well (1896)
 * Graydon Parrish – The Cycle of Terror and Tragedy (2006)
 * Many statues of Lady Justice: "Such visual representations have raised the question why so many allegories in the history of art, pertaining occupations once reserved for men only, are of female sex."
 * Damien Hirst Verity (2012)

title: Allegory


text:
Allotropy

Allotropy or allotropism is the property of some chemical elements to exist in two or more different forms, in the same physical state, known as allotropes of the elements. Allotropes are different structural modifications of an element: the atoms of the element are bonded together in different manners. For example, the allotropes of carbon include diamond (the carbon atoms are bonded together to form a cubic lattice of tetrahedra), graphite (the carbon atoms are bonded together in sheets of a hexagonal lattice), graphene (single sheets of graphite), and fullerenes (the carbon atoms are bonded together in spherical, tubular, or ellipsoidal formations).

The term allotropy is used for elements only, not for compounds. The more general term, used for any compound, is polymorphism, although its use is usually restricted to solid materials such as crystals. Allotropy refers only to different forms of an element within the same physical phase (the state of matter, such as a solid, liquid or gas). The differences between these states of matter would not alone constitute examples of allotropy. Allotropes of chemical elements are frequently referred to as polymorphs or as phases of the element.

For some elements, allotropes have different molecular formulae or different crystalline structures, as well as a difference in physical phase; for example, two allotropes of oxygen (dioxygen, O2, and ozone, O3) can both exist in the solid, liquid and gaseous states. Other elements do not maintain distinct allotropes in different physical phases; for example, phosphorus has numerous solid allotropes, which all revert to the same P4 form when melted to the liquid state.

History
The concept of allotropy was originally proposed in 1840 by the Swedish scientist Baron Jöns Jakob Berzelius (1779–1848). See:
 * From p. 14: "Om det ock passar väl för att uttrycka förhållandet emellan myrsyrad ethyloxid och ättiksyrad methyloxid, så är det icke passande för de olika tillstånd hos de enkla kropparne, hvari dessa blifva af skiljaktiga egenskaper, och torde för dem böra ersättas af en bättre vald benämning, t. ex. Allotropi (af αλλότροπος, som betyder:  af olika beskaffenhet) eller allotropiskt tillstånd."  (If it [i.e., the word isomer] is also well suited to express the relation between formic acid ethyl oxide [i.e., ethyl formate] and acetic acid methyloxide [i.e., methyl acetate], then it [i.e., the word isomers] is not suitable for different conditions of simple substances, where these [substances] transform to have different properties, and [therefore the word isomers] should be replaced, in their case, by a better chosen name; for example, Allotropy (from αλλότροπος, which means: of different nature) or allotropic condition.)
 * Republished in German:   From p. 13:  "Wenn es sich auch noch gut eignet, um das Verhältniss zwischen ameisensaurem Äthyloxyd und essigsaurem Methyloxyd auszudrücken, so ist es nicht passend für ungleiche Zustände bei Körpern, in welchen diese verschiedene Eigenschaften annehmen, und dürfte für diese durch eine besser gewählte Benennung zu ersetzen sein, z. B. durch Allotropie (von αλλότροπος, welches bedeutet:  von ungleicher Beschaffenheit), oder durch allotropischen Zustand." (Even if it [i.e., the word isomer] is still well suited to express the relation between ethyl formate and methyl acetate, then it is not appropriate for the distinct conditions in the case of substances where these [substances] assume different properties, and for these, [the word isomer] may be replaced with a better chosen designation, e.g., with Allotropy (from αλλότροπος, which means: of distinct character), or with allotropic condition.)
 * Merriam-Webster online dictionary: Allotropy The term is derived . After the acceptance of Avogadro's hypothesis in 1860, it was understood that elements could exist as polyatomic molecules, and two allotropes of oxygen were recognized as O2 and O3. In the early 20th century, it was recognized that other cases such as carbon were due to differences in crystal structure.

By 1912, Ostwald noted that the allotropy of elements is just a special case of the phenomenon of polymorphism known for compounds, and proposed that the terms allotrope and allotropy be abandoned and replaced by polymorph and polymorphism. Although many other chemists have repeated this advice, IUPAC and most chemistry texts still favour the usage of allotrope and allotropy for elements only.

Differences in properties of an element's allotropes
Allotropes are different structural forms of the same element and can exhibit quite different physical properties and chemical behaviours. The change between allotropic forms is triggered by the same forces that affect other structures, i.e., pressure, light, and temperature. Therefore, the stability of the particular allotropes depends on particular conditions. For instance, iron changes from a body-centered cubic structure (ferrite) to a face-centered cubic structure (austenite) above 906 °C, and tin undergoes a modification known as tin pest from a metallic form to a semimetallic form below 13.2 °C (55.8 °F). As an example of allotropes having different chemical behaviour, ozone (O3) is a much stronger oxidizing agent than dioxygen (O2).

List of allotropes
Typically, elements capable of variable coordination number and/or oxidation states tend to exhibit greater numbers of allotropic forms. Another contributing factor is the ability of an element to catenate.

Examples of allotropes include:

Metals
Among the metallic elements that occur in nature in significant quantities (56 up to U, without Tc and Pm), almost half (27) are allotropic at ambient pressure: Li, Be, Na, Ca, Ti, Mn, Fe, Co, Sr, Y, Zr, Sn, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Gd, Tb, Dy, Yb, Hf, Tl, Th, Pa and U. Some phase transitions between allotropic forms of technologically relevant metals are those of Ti at 882 °C, Fe at 912 °C and 1394 °C, Co at 422 °C, Zr at 863 °C, Sn at 13 °C and U at 668 °C and 776 °C.

Most stable stable under standard conditions. Structures stable below room temperature. Structures stable above room temperature. Structures stable above atmospheric pressure.

Lanthanides and actinides

 * Cerium, samarium, dysprosium and ytterbium have three allotropes.
 * Praseodymium, neodymium, gadolinium and terbium have two allotropes.
 * Plutonium has six distinct solid allotropes under "normal" pressures. Their densities vary within a ratio of some 4:3, which vastly complicates all kinds of work with the metal (particularly casting, machining, and storage). A seventh plutonium allotrope exists at very high pressures. The transuranium metals Np, Am, and Cm are also allotropic.
 * Promethium, americium, berkelium and californium have three allotropes each.

Nanoallotropes
In 2017, the concept of nanoallotropy was proposed. Nanoallotropes, or allotropes of nanomaterials, are nanoporous materials that have the same chemical composition (e.g., Au), but differ in their architecture at the nanoscale (that is, on a scale 10 to 100 times the dimensions of individual atoms). Such nanoallotropes may help create ultra-small electronic devices and find other industrial applications. The different nanoscale architectures translate into different properties, as was demonstrated for surface-enhanced Raman scattering performed on several different nanoallotropes of gold. A two-step method for generating nanoallotropes was also created.

title: Allotropy


text:
Agathocles of Syracuse

Agathocles (Ἀγαθοκλῆς, Agathoklḗs; 361–289 BC) was a Greek tyrant of Syracuse (317–289 BC) and self-styled king of Sicily (304–289 BC).

Biography
Agathocles was born at Thermae Himeraeae (modern name Termini Imerese), Magna Graecia, in Sicily. The son of a potter who had moved to Syracuse in about 343 BC, he learned his father's trade, but afterwards entered the army along with his brother Antander. In 333 BC he married the widow of his patron Damas, a distinguished and wealthy citizen. He was twice banished for attempting to overthrow the oligarchical party in Syracuse.

In 317 BC he returned with an army of mercenaries under a solemn oath to observe the democratic constitution which was established after they took the city. Having massacred the oligarchs and the richest of the citizenry, he thus made himself master of Syracuse, and he created a strong army and fleet and subdued the greater part of Sicily.

War with Carthage followed. In 311 BC Agathocles was defeated in the Battle of the Himera River and besieged in Syracuse. In 310 BC he made a desperate effort to break through the blockade and attack Carthage. He landed at Cape Bon in August 310 BC, and was able to defeat the Carthaginians for the first time, and establish a camp near Tunis. He then turned east and tried to take over coastal trading cities such as Neapolis and Hadrumetum, and on this occasion concluded an alliance with Ailymas, king of the Libyans according to Diodorus of Sicily, in an attempt to surround and isolate Carthage. After capturing Hadrumetum, Thapsus and other coastal towns, Agathocles turned his attention to central Tunisia. Before or during this campaign, he broke his alliance with Ailymas, whom he pursued and killed, but he kept his Numidian army, including war chariots they built.

In 309/8 BC, Agathocles began trying to sway Ophellas, ruler of Cyrenaica, as he was likely to prove a useful ally in Agathocles' war against the Carthaginians. To gain his allegiance, he promised to cede to Ophellas whatever conquests their combined forces might make in Africa, reserving to himself only the possession of Sicily. Ophellas gathered a powerful army from the homeland of his wife Euthydike (a descendant of Miltiades), Athens, where many citizens felt disgruntled after having lost their voting rights. Despite the natural obstacles that presented themselves on his route, Ophellas succeeded in reaching the Carthaginian territories after a toilsome and perilous march of more than two months. He was received by Agathocles with every demonstration of friendship, and the two armies encamped near each other, but a few days later, Agathocles betrayed his new ally by attacking the camp of the Cyrenaeans and having Ophellas killed. The Cyrenean troops, left without a leader, went over to Agathocles.

After several victories, he was finally completely defeated (307 BC) and fled secretly to Sicily. After concluding peace with Carthage in 306 BC, Agathocles styled himself king of Sicily in 304 BC, and established his rule over the Greek cities of the island more firmly than ever. A peace treaty with Carthage left him in control of Sicily east of the Halycus River. Even in his old age, he displayed the same restless energy and is said to have been contemplating a fresh attack on Carthage at the time of his death.

His last years were plagued by ill health and the turbulence of his grandson Archagathus, at whose instigation he is said to have been poisoned; according to others, he died a natural death. He was a born leader of mercenaries, and, although he did not shrink from cruelty to gain his ends, he afterwards showed himself a mild and popular "tyrant". Agathocles restored the Syracusan democracy on his deathbed and did not want his sons to succeed him as king.

Agathocles was married three times. His first wife, by whom he had two sons, was the widow of his patron Damas. Their sons Archagathus and his brother were both murdered in 307 BC. His second wife was Alcia and they had a daughter Lanassa, second wife of King Pyrrhus of Epirus, and a son Agathocles, who was murdered in a succession dispute shortly before his father's death. His third wife was the Greek Ptolemaic Princess Theoxena, who was the second daughter of Berenice I and her first husband Philip and a stepdaughter of Ptolemy I Soter. Theoxena bore Agathocles two children: Archagathus and Theoxena. Theoxena survived Agathocles. He had further descendants from his second and third marriages.

Legacy
Agathocles was cited as an example "Of those who become princes through their crimes" in chapter 8 of Niccolò Machiavelli's treatise on politics - The Prince (1513). He was described as behaving as a criminal at every stage of his career. Machiavelli claimed: "Agathocles, the Sicilian, became King of Syracuse not only from a private but from a low and abject position. This man, the son of a potter, through all the changes in his fortunes, always led an infamous life. Nevertheless, he accompanied his infamies with so much ability of mind and body that, having devoted himself to the military profession, he rose through its ranks to be Praetor of Syracuse."

Machiavelli goes on to reason that Agathocles' success, in contrast to other criminal tyrants, was due to his ability to commit his crimes quickly and ruthlessly, and states that cruelties are best used when they "are applied at one blow and are necessary to one's security, and that are not persisted in afterwards unless they can be turned to the advantage of the subjects." However, he came to glory as much as he did brutality by repelling invading Carthaginians and winning the loyalty of the denizens of his land.

title: Agathocles of Syracuse