Re: Linguistic term for ease of changing word-class (was: 'out-' affix in conlangs?)
From: | Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> |
Date: | Monday, August 11, 2008, 12:31 |
To go back to the typecasting metaphor, the idea behind typecasting is
that it represents the identity operation. The copula, as it were.
Sure, there are infinitely many functions that receive a character
string as input and return a floating point number as output, but the
"obvious" one that needs no qualification is the one that returns the
"value" of the string - presumably the one it would represent if
entered as a numeric literal in the source code.
This is not always clear-cut, and is therefore a good metaphor for the
sort of munging under discussion. The regular part-of-speech endings
in E-o inspired me to do likewise in my early conlangs... e.g. all
nouns in Shalakar end in "-wa"... and I very quickly ran up against
the problem of defining a general rule for deriving the meaning of a
trans-part-of-speeched root. There is no such rule that is wholly
satisfactory, IMO.
On 8/10/08, Dana Nutter <li_sasxsek@...> wrote:
>> [mailto:CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf Of
> caeruleancentaur
>
>> > <Liase> is quite interesting, since <-on> isn't (AFAIK) a
>> > derivational affix in English, such that it could be removed
> from
>> > the word, the way that <-ance> is. I guess that's similar to
>> > <-aholic> from <alcoholic>. I am trying to think of other
> examples
>> > of that same thing happening, but they aren't coming to me.
>>
>> These come to my mind:
>> hamburger > cheeseburger (named after the German city
> Cheeseburg)
>> execute > electrocute
>
> Or "-gate" (< Watergate) for scandals like "Billygate" or
> "Contragate".
>
--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>