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

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Jim Henry wrote:
>
> On 4/15/06, Taka Tunu <takatunu@...> wrote:
> > Yohemiwi kana kero hipi we kame time hipi wi yapehewa "tara roko hate matu mihi"
> ....
> > (Translation: There are several thread on this list about "self-segregating
> > morphology" that I cannot understand because these threads use plenty of words
> > pertaining to maths or computer sciences that I don't understand. And yet.)
>
> If I recall correctly from the last time I looked at Tunu,
> it has a more or less self-segregating morphology.
> Self-segregating morphology simply means that the
> rules about what shapes a word, or a morpheme, can
> have, and how they're put together into compounds
> (if the language isn't purely isolating), are such that
> you can always tell where one morpheme, or word,
> leaves off and the next one begins.  Some of the methods
> for doing so are complex and require some maths
> (e.g., Plan B, and Jörg and Ray's redesigns of it);
> others are very simple.
>
> 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.
>
> Tceqli has perhaps the simplest such rule: one set
> of phonemes (the fricatives, plosives and affricates)
> are the beginning set, and another set (the vowels,
> nasals, liquids and semivowels) are the following set.
> A morpheme consists of one or more phonemes from
> the beginning set, followed by one or more phonemes
> from the following set.  I'm thinking of stealing this
> for my next conlang, but modifying the sets of phonemes
> in each set.
I thought about this a bit (alright, for five seconds) and
decided on a simple extension to this approach.  Using
this method, I have created an entire new family of
conlangs, with already vast, rich and varied vocabularies;
an exemplar which all members of this list would be able
to use with little pain is called STARTenglMIDDLEishEND,
whose very name exemplifies the means by which we
segregate both morphemes and words.  Let us translate
the phrase "a simple extension" into STARTenglMIDDLE
ishEND (note that no hyphens are required to mark word
continuations!): "STARTaEND STARTsimMIDDLEpleEND
STARTexMIDDLEtensMIDDLEionEND".

French speakers may be more at home with DÉBUTfranç
MIaisBOUT, Malay speakers with MULAmeTENGAHla
TENGAHyuHENTI, ... etc.

At one stroke we have solved the ever-vexing problem of
how to obtain a usable voabulary with minimal effort.  Such
efficiency!  I thank you for this excellent notion ...

(But seriously ...) Imagine, if you will, the society of the late
twenty-second century, when mankind has abolished (by
means fair or foul) the spectre of want, and has also
secured for its members the prospect of a VERY long life
free of disease and pain.  At some point, people will begin
to realise that they can finally take the time to say exactly
what they mean, without rushing.  For let's face it, there
will be very little for them to actually *do* to fill in their days.
So the lost arts of conversation will thrive; people will once
again take up bridge and croquet and yes, even philosophy,
becasue they will be able to formulate their ideas with ever-
increasing clarity.  At this time, the historical pressures on
language to be efficient means of communication will begin
to crumble.  (Indeed, to judge by the output of much of
academia, not to mention social work bureaucracies, the
process has already begun in earnest, perhaps as early as
the middle of the twentieth century.)  Then it will make very
good sense for good communicators to disambiguate their
every utterance, and they will welcome a tool that clearly
marks the beggining, end and junctures of each morpheme
they utter.  This is when STARTenglMIDDLEishEND and
its cousins will come into their own ...


> In Ilomi a word always begins and ends with a vowel,
> and two vowels in a row never occur within a word; a morpheme boundary
> in a compound word has an /n/
> between two vowels, and /n/ by itself never occurs in root
> morphemes).
>
> Plan B and the redesigns of it the consonants grouped
> into sets which indicate the number of syllables in the
> word.  So a word starting with one of a certain set
> of consonants will be one syllable, a word starting with
> one from another set will be two sylllables, and so forth.
> (This is a major simplification.)  Yahya recently posted
> (probably tongue in cheek) a more verbose self-segregation
> scheme with the same basic principle.
Why would you think that tongue in cheek, Jim?  Following
my argument above, I'm sure you'll see that for beings
without our (current) pressures towards efficiency, the
verbosity of any scheme would not be an issue.


Herman Miller wrote:
> Jaghri marks the end of a word component by an open syllable. So all
> word components are of the form V, CV, CVCCV, CVCCVCCV, and so on. A
> syllable consisting of a single vowel without a consonant marks the end
> of a word and specifies its role in the syntax.
>
> panngajriiyidraghiatilkuriutimbiibalriingurpai:
> panngajrii: panngajri - i
> yidraghia: yidra - ghi - a
> tilkuriu: tilku - ri - u
> timbii: timbi - i
> balrii: balri - i
> ngurpai: ngurpa - i
Very, very neat!


> But Jaghri isn't entirely self-segregating, since some word components
> are formed of shorter morphemes joined together:
>
> pertikra (bluebird): per- + tikra
> kagvifta (drumstick): kag- + vifta
> milticni (thirty): milti + -cni
> vilnimpa (lemon): vilni + -mpa
>
> There's no way of knowing whether pertikra is per- + tikra or perti +
> -kra without looking it up. This could be fixed by placing a stress on
> the first syllable of a two-syllable morpheme: pertíkra, kagvífta,
> mílticni, vílnimpa, or on the second syllable: pertikrá, kagviftá,
> miltícni, vilnímpa.
Darn!  and it was looking so good, too!

And quite efficient ...

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.2/314 - Release Date: 16/4/06