Re: Self-segregating morphology again - in simpler terms, with list of methods

On 4/17/06, Dana Nutter <sasxsek@...> wrote:

> Very similar to what was done with Sasxsek although SSM was not really a
> design goal.  All roots are CVC, CVC(VC...) except for
> common/grammatical words which are CV.  Suffixes are V(C).  There are no
> "prefixes" (some compounded roots ma be considered prefixes by some).
> There are also some V words (A, O, U, AJ) which are basically particles
> that are seldom used. Compounds are generally joined by X /@/ so they
> are easily.
So /@/ is your compound hyphen, like /n/ in Ilomi?
(What do you mean by 'generally' here - what are the
exceptions?)  An earlier draft sketch of my current conlang project
had a compound hyphen vowel, tentatively
schwa, but I've about decided to have no compounds at all,
and make it purely isolating.

> Roots are not created that may conflict with existing root+suffix
> patterns to help avoid misinterpretation and minimize the chances of
> having a "sukero" problem.
Does this mean that no morpheme in Sasxsek contains a
prefix or suffix substring that looks like another real morpheme?
Or does it just mean that such substring matches are few?

--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry

Reply