Re: CHAT: Early Conlang Archives

Nik Taylor Writes:
>When you come upon a new word, a word you've never seen before, it
helps
>to be able to figure out it's meaning from the structure.
True.  And this is the only place that I can see a use for that kind of
hyperregularity: people figuring out unfamiliar words when they first
see them.

>... Once you
>have heard that word, your brain probably stores it as a seperate
entry,
>especially since derived words often don't mean exactly what their
>structure would imply, sometimes dramatically so, as in the case of
>"inflammable".
Actually, "inflammable" means *exactly* what its structure implies: it
means that the substance can "inflame" or catch fire.  Unfortunately,
the "in" in "inflame", which I believe vaguely implies the initiation of
a process, happens to be homophonous to the negative "in" (though the
two are etymologically unrelated).

>  So, it seems to me that derivation *is* truly useful,
>ESPECIALLY for an auxlang, but even in natlangs.  It makes new words
>easier to comprehend, and it makes it easier to discuss new ideas, by
>creating words on the spot, as I did with "antidenationalizationist".
Yes, but if you *ever* use the word "antidentationalizationist" in
conversation, it will begin to accrete additional meanings not available
from its derivation.  For example, if you used the word extensively in a
discussion of Syldavian politics, and it had never been used anywhere
else, it would accrete an association with Syldavia, until and unless it
was used in a wider context.

I base this both upon common sense and upon the work of Adele Goldberg,
in her book _Constructions_, on semantic range.

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com