Re: Polysynthesis & Oligosynthesis

From: "Tim May" <butsuri@...>
> Muke Tever writes:
>  > Well, according to Payne's _Describing Morphosyntax_:
>  >
>  >     >> The index of *synthesis* [...] has to do with how many
>  >     >> morphemes tend to occur per word.  This index defines
>  >     >> a continuum from *isolating* languages at one extreme to
>  >     >> highly *polysynthetic* languages at the other.  A strictly
>  >     >> isolating language is one in which every word consists of
>  >     >> one morpheme.  The Chinese languages come close to this
>  >     >> extreme.  A highly polysynthetic language is one in which
>  >     >> words tend to consist of several morphemes.  Quechua and
>  >     >> Inuit (Eskimo) are good examples of highly polysynthetic
>  >     >> languages.
>  >
> Most interesting.  3 questions: 1) which definition of "word" is
> relevant to the above definition?
None is given.

> 2) is this definition of "polysynthetic", essentially as the inverse
> of "isolating", the only sense of the word in common use?
As far as I can tell, yes; although sometimes described differently the basic
idea is generally there.

> 3) at what point is it appropriate
> to describe a language as essentially polysynthetic (it would appear
> that there is a midground of languages which are not normally
> described as either isolating or polysynthetic, if this is indeed the
> same use of the word "polysynthetic").
The book says "A more useful, though non-quantitative, rule is that if the
language can express a whole sentence with just a verb, it is polysynthetic.  If
not, it is isolating."

Of course some languages are more polysynthetic than others, and some more
isolating than others:  it is a scale (or a 'continuum' as the above def puts
it)...I suppose those for those that are not highly polysynthetic (such as, say,
Latin) it may not be of much use to talk of their polysynthesis at all.  (?)

    *Muke!
--
http://www.frath.net/

Reply