Edward Heil wrote:
> So while being able to look at the word "sankapepabotu" and calculate
> that because of the exact combination of syllable forms and affixes it
> must mean "toad the wet sprocket"
Or is it "bite the wax tadpole"? :-)
> might be useful to a language learner,
> it will be far less useful to the language *speaker*.... because
> "calculation" as it is usually understood simply does not get used.
An aspect you haven't considered is that of the person who is
writing or speaking a word in the language for the first time. Since
auxlangs don't have ready-made cultures like artlangs (fictional)
and natlangs (actual), lots of their words don't get created until
someone needs them for a particular utterance or text.
In that case it's important that the analysis be fairly transparent
and that the word not collide with some other compound word
that looks the same but is made up of different parts. Otherwise
communication will fail.
(For this purpose, Lojban fits with the auxlangs.)
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)