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

> [mailto:CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Henry
> Here's another:
>
> 6. All morphemes begin and end with a consonant and
> have no consonant clusters within them.  A consonant
> cluster marks a morpheme boundary.
> (Vorlin used this to some extent, but not, I think,
> consistently enough to be perfectly self-segregating
> -- content morphemes were all CVC, CVCVC, etc but
> particles, prefixes  and suffixes were CV or VC and I
> don't recall that it had a way to distinguish them
> from the content roots they adjoined.)
> Or maybe one vowel is reserved for use as a
> morpheme boundary marker, so there are no
> consonant clusters.
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.

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.

No, it's not SSM but it does leave strong clues as to where words are
separated.


------------------------------
dejnx nxtxr / Dana Nutter

LI SASXSEK LATIS.
http://www.nutter.net/sasxsek

Reply