Re: Which is simpler: /y/ or /iw/?

Mark J. Reed wrote:
> And veering a tad OT, why is the word "simplification" instead of
> *"simplication"?  Seems like we have at least one lazy morpheme
> tagging along for the ride and not doing anything useful...
>
> The obvious answer is that it's nominalized from "simplify" rather
> than *"simplicate", but that's just begging the question. Why did that
> verb get that form?  Duplex, duplicate; triple, triplicate; complex,
> complicate; simple(x), simplify.  nuqjay'?
Simplifaction?

Especially with the contrast of "complication", it makes you wonder.
That's one of the things that's missing from Lindiga. Derivation is
boringly regular. Maybe I should try adding a few complifications in the
derivancies of worden.