Re: Self-Segregating Morphologies

Mike S:
> On Tue, 14 May 2002 04:36:45 +0100, And Rosta <a-rosta@...> wrote:
>
> >Mike S:
> >>
> >> Are there any systems out there greatly different from the four that
> >> I have mentioned?
> >
> >Yes. Let me first mention my preferred varisnt on the above sorts of
> >system:
> >* C alternates with V or (@) = elidable schwa.
> >* word boundary # is present iff in the environment V#CV or VCV#.
>
> I am afraid I don't quite grasp this description... could you elaborate a
> bit?
Sorry. It was rather gnomic. And it was also an incorrect description
of my scheme, unless (& I genuinely forget, tho it was only yesterday)
I was intentionally describing a different scheme.

You've got two sorts of syllables, CV and C(@).
Within any string of syllables, where VCV occurs, a word boundary
occurs: V# CV.
Within any string of syllables, where VC(@)CV occurs, a word boundary
occurs: V# C(@)CV.
Word boundaries don't occur elsewhere

e.g.  CV CV C(@)CV CVC(@)C(@)C(@)CV C(@)C(@)CV

Clearly the rules can be varied somewhat, to give whatever results
are desired.

> >As for a gretly different system, I offer that of Livagian.
>
> Is this language on the web?  My websearch was fruitless.
Not yet. Hopefully within the next 5 years it will be. If you decide
you're interested in its self-segmentation I can send you a
Word document describing the phonology. Mere courtesy does not
require an expression of interest, though.

> >> Is it important to self-segregate the morpheme level, or is word-
> >> level self-segregation sufficient?
> >
> >It depends. If the morphology is compositional, productive and
> >regular, then self-segregating morphemes are necessary. Otherwise,
> >they're not.
>
> I was briefly mulling a system in which roots would, through a regularized
> process, produce "rafsi" of sorts, one for the prefix, and one for a
> suffix.  Sort of like forming "conguage" from CONstructed lanGUAGE"
> These pseudo-rafsi would not themselves be distinct, but they
> would produce distinct new roots which would be assigned a precise
> dictionary definition.
Interesting. I haven't come across this scheme before, though it
is most reminiscent of Katanda, out of existing schemes.

> Moreover, compounds themselves could decompose
> and form new compounds rather than agglutinate.  A rationalized acronym
> system was another idea I had.  Acronyms are a very terse and productive
> derivational device in English, though obviously handicapped by the fact
> that reversing the composition process is not possible. I must admit
> I grow less fond of these ideas the more I think about them though.
Unlike the vast majority of engelangers, I see no appeal in decomposable
(unambigously analysable) compounds. I don't see much advantage in
a *regularized* rafsioid scheme of the sort you describe. Overall, I
think compounding is very overrated.

--And.

Reply