[…] the phonemic constituency of each morpheme is in any case a matter of detailed listing, and is usually subject to few regularities and generalizations. Therefore it is in general convenient to include as many individual facts as possible about each morpheme in its phonemic constitution (since that has to be given individually for each morpheme), and to leave the general facts for the morphological statements (which will then be statements about groups of morphemes rather than about individual ones). Thus, in the case of the Hidatsa command […], if we analyzed /cixic/ as /cix/ ‘jump’ plus /ic/ ‘he did’, we would have to discuss /cix/ individually on two occasions: once to state its phonemic constituency; and again, to state that when it occurs next to the ‘he did’ morpheme the vowel of that morpheme is /i/ rather than some other. There would be several forms for ‘he did’, and each would occur after particular stems. However, if we analyze /cixic/ as /cixi/ plus /c/, we mention /cixi/ individually only once, and /c/ ‘he did’ only once, in each case giving the phonemic constitution. The second method does, however, involve a small cost: in the first method, we would say that /cix/ ‘jump!’ consists of the one morphemic segment /cix/; whereas in the second we would have to say that /cix/ ‘jump!’ consists of two segments, /cixi/ ‘jump’ and /'drop mora'/ ‘command’.
- Harris (1951), a pag.164, n.15