Re: Comparison of philosophical languages
|From:||Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, January 25, 2003, 15:31|
Andrew Nowicki wrote:
>Andreas Johansson wrote:
>AJ> As you may be aware, I was temporarily nomail
>AJ> when this discussion started. I'm beginning
>AJ> to think you are using the term "root word"
>AJ> differently than I assumed. So, to keep down
>AJ> the rate of misunderstandings, could you spell
>AJ> out what you mean by "root word" here?
>I use two letters long root words like Lego blocks.
>abrasive = y-dy-fe = "noun sharp powder"
>accountant = o-ga-ja = "noun money craftsman"
>acceleration = y-co-zi-ly = "noun changing mobile number"
Hm, then you meant something quite like I thought.
Quite possibly it doesn't concern you at all, but a language in which
(apparently) most nouns are lengthy compounds, without any actual
derivational morphemes, strikes me as unnatural.
Is the thing supposed to be taxonomical in that you can, given the rules,
figure out the meaning of a compound? If not, I'm seriously failing to see
the point in this kind of vocabulary structure.
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*