Re: Polysynthesis & Oligosynthesis

From: "Tim May" <butsuri@...>
> I think I know enough now to have a broad idea of what a polysynthetic
> language looks like, but I've never seen an entirely satisfying
> definition of what distinguishes a polysynthetic language from a
> non-polysynthetic one.  Any clarification of this point would be
> appreciated.
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.

He gives an example from Yup'ik Eskimo:

    tuntussuqatarniksaitengqiggtuq
    tuntu   -ssur-qatar-ni -ksaite-ngqiggte-uq
    reindeer-hunt-FUT  -say-NEG   -again   -3SG:IND
    "He had not yet said again that he was going to hunt reindeer."


(Also, typing "polysynthesis" which has two y's next to each other like that is
quite disturbing.)

> Also, can the essential details of Whorf's idea of oligosynthesis be
> explained to me?  All I really know is:
>
> *Whorf proposed an analysis of Nahuatl as oligosynthetic
> *said analysis is considered to have been fundamentally incorrect
> *oligosynthesis involves word-building from a very small set of
>  morphemes
> *I am not aware of any natlangs which are described as oligosynthetic
> *Brad Coon's conlang Nova [1] is oligosynthetic
>
> If anyone is familiar with the idea of oligosynthesis, I would be
> pleased to hear more about it.
From what I remember reading about Whorf, it seemed like the idea of
oligosynthesis is farther from the idea of isolation/polysynthesia and closer to
what we think of proto-languages now:  English has and has had millions of
words, but the vast majority of them are derived (through various means) from a
much, much smaller set of morphemes (those of Proto-Indo-European).   Or,
possibly a better example (if it works, because I know nothing about the actual
theory), the way that Semitic triliteral roots would be derived from a
[necessarily smaller?] set of biliteral roots with extensions.  (Wasn't it some
mystical analysis of Hebrew along these lines that inspired Whorf to see
oligosynthesis in Nahuatl?)


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

Reply