Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re : Re: Artyom Kouzminykh: Answers & proposal

From:From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html <lassailly@...>
Date:Monday, August 23, 1999, 8:29
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=
> and inflected cases. But consider that a language that uses inflections i=
> going to have a lot fewer words in any utterance. Conversely, a language > that uses prepositions and auxiliary verbs extensively (and no inflection=
> 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