Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 23/08/99 01:06:34 , Fabian a =E9crit :
> Consider the following conceptual equivalents:
> =20
> noun verb
> preposition auxiliary verb
> inflected case inflected tense
> =20
> Now, this isn't an absolute thing, as many languages have both prepositio=
ns
> and inflected cases. But consider that a language that uses inflections i=
s
> going to have a lot fewer words in any utterance. Conversely, a language
> that uses prepositions and auxiliary verbs extensively (and no inflection=
s)
> is going to have every word in a dictionary in an easy-to-look-up format.
> The only real question is which of these really *is* simpler.
inflexions are not a problem if you match the word orders
in the sentence and in the lexicalisation.
for instance - putting tense aside - take SVO
and try to keep it in lexicalisation :
plain : "man give present to woman"
dependence : "present that one give it to one"
adjectivation : "present that-one-give-it-to-one"
lexicalisation : "present START-give-it-to-END =3D gift"
plain : "man give present to woman"
dependence : "woman one give one to she"
adjectivation : "woman that-one-give-to-she"
lexicalisation : "woman START-give-to-she-END =3D givee"
"it" and "she" are pro-PoS tags kept
in lexicalisation. some natlangs work like that.
but most natlangs prefer to blur both in a single passive
form "present give-n ; woman give-n (to)"
or reverse word order in dependence or lexicalisation.
maybe it is best to allow both constructions
in a same language.
but suffix-morphology in SVO auxlangs are
maybe - how to say ? - not SO fit for purpose.
mathias
=20