Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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. >For example: >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. Andreas _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*


Andrew Nowicki <andrew@...>
Peter Bleackley <peter.bleackley@...>