Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Agglutinativity Index (was: Re: What's a good isolating language to look at)

From:Jim Henry <jimhenry1973@...>
Date:Thursday, December 8, 2005, 22:17
On 12/8/05, Thomas Hart Chappell <tomhchappell@...> wrote:
> --- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Jim Henry <jimhenry1973@G...> wrote:
> > John C. Wells, in _Lingvistikaj Aspektoj de Esperanto_,*** > > quotes the Greenberg article and calculates indexes > > of synthesis and agglutinativity for Esperanto.
> Are these ratios and averages "by type" or "by token"? > > That is, for the agglutinativity index, do you count each morpheme > just once, no matter how many times it occurs in the text; or do you > weight more-frequently-used morphemes with more weight?
> (For the synthesis index, the question would be, do you count each > _word_ just once, or weight more-frequently-used _words_ with more > weight?)
I just re-read the passage in Wells 1989 and can't find anything explicit one way or another. Perhaps someone with access to the original Greenberg 1960 article can answer this. (I just realized no one has cited the Greenberg article's title etc in full; Wells gives it as A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of languages. _Int. J. American Linguistics_ 26.3.178-194. A quick Google search shows it has been reprinted in Keith Denning & Suzanne Kemmer(eds.) On Language: Selected Writings of Joseph H. Greenberg, pp. 3-25.Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
> Are there languages with a "synthesis index" of more-than-4? (so > that, in the "average" word, the "average" morpheme would be neither > word-initial nor word-final.)
I suppose you mean natlangs -- we've already seen at least one conlang with a synthesis index of >4 in this thread. I don't know of any sources for synthesis index figures for natlangs other than the Greenberg source already cited.
> Is there a language with a "synthesis index" of less-than-3 which, > nevertheless, really deserves to be called "polysynthetic"?
Hm... maybe a language whose verbs incorporate subjects and objects, but whose voice, tense, aspect, mood, evidentiality etc. are marked with optional stand-alone particles? I would still hesitate to call such a language "polysynthetic", ignoring the "poly-". Wikipedia says: Many, if not most, languages regarded as polysynthetic include agreement with object arguments as well as subject arguments in verbs. Incorporation (primarily noun incorporation) has been an issue that has historically been confused with polysynthesis and also used as a criterion for its definition. Incorporation refers to the phenomenon where lexical morphemes (or lexemes) are combined together to form a single word. Not all polysynthetic languages are incorporating, and not all incorporating languages are polysynthetic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysynthetic_language)
> Would a language whose "synthesis index" was less than 1.5, say, but > whose "agglutinating index" was less than 0.5 (or whose "fusing > index" was 2.0 or more), qualify as an "isolating fusing" language?
I wouldn't have any problem calling it that. Maybe, whenever Jeffrey Henning has time to update Langmaker again, it would be good to add these agglutinativity and synthesis indices to the conlang database. & maybe these should be added to the language template on Wikipedia? More likely, just add figures to individual articles on languages for which data in published sources is available. -- Jim Henry http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/gzb/gzb.htm ...Mind the gmail Reply-to: field

Reply

Dirk Elzinga <dirk.elzinga@...>