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

Jim Henry, On 17/04/2006 17:58:
> Maybe it would make sense to collect a list of methods
> for self-segregation.  I'm thinking about this a lot lately
> because I want my next conlang to have such a feature.
My conlang, Livagian, has unambiguous syntax parsed
incrementally with no lookahead, and it cuts the
Gordian knot of self-segrating morphology by extending
the input to the syntactic parser to the level of the
syllable (or potentially the segment). As each syllable
is read in, the syllable is looked up in the lexicogrammar,
resulting in one of the following sorts of instruction
to the parser:
(a) Subordinate the incoming syllable to the syllable that
follows it.
(b) Access the lexical entry corresponding (i) to the
incoming syllable, or (ii), if the incoming syllable is
the root of a chain of syllables linked by process (a),
to the syllable chain rooted in the incoming syllable.
Follow the instructions of the lexicogrammar to link
the incoming syllable to a previous node or to a following
node.

The lexicon necessarily contains instructions for how to
deal with every string of syllables.

The upshot is that a sentence can't necessarily be parsed
into words or morphemes on the basis of its phonological
form alone, but a sentence can be fully parsed on the
basis of its phonological form and the lexicogrammar,
without there being a need for self-segregating morphology
or for the complexities or constraints on morpheme shapes
that self-segregation schemes impose.

To summarize, the usual rationale for self-segregating
morphology is that it is a prerequisite for lack of
sentential ambiguity. But Livagian's strategy shows that
sentential unambiguity can be achieved without self-
segregating morphology.

--And.