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

> [mailto:CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Henry
> 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.
/@/ was never intended to be a hyphen but actually was put there to
separate consonants, but also works well to mark compounds.  The
exceptions are compounds where the first element ends with a vowel as in
"muven" (mu+ven; mu=away from, ven=motion).


> > 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?
Substring matches (ex: "saf" and "safat") are still possible.  Suffix
conflicts are specifically avoided.  Prefixes don't exist.

For example, I can have a word like "finin" ("endless, infinite" <-
fin=end, -in=no, non, un-, -less, etc.) which means I will not make any
more roots which begin with "fin+{any suffix}" making it impossible to
have another root containing "finin".

Although it hasn't happened yet, it is still possible for a compound
made from CV+CVC to end up the same as a CVCVC root.  The CV+CVC forms
are few and mostly consist of preposition+verb/noun compounds.

There are also some phonemes where are restricted in use which also aid
in separation.  /@/ occurs only between elements of a compound.  /r/ and
/l/ are not allowed to occur at the end of a root (I'm considering some
limited uses of final /l/).  /N/ is not allowed as an initial.  Final
/x/ is being used sparingly and mostly now just to adapt roots that end
with a vowel as in "kafeh" /kafex/ (=coffee).

The exception to all of this comes in the handling of proper names and
their derivatives.  They are basically freeform and are adapted only to
fit the phonology.  They are however introduced with a name marker.


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

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

Reply