Re: basic morphemes of a loglang
|From:||Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, December 4, 2003, 20:28|
On Wednesday, December 3, 2003, at 02:39 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Ray Brown scripsit:
>> Proper names must be accommodated and, hopefully, without too much
> Proper names and borrowings can be unified: if you have a solution for
> one, it can be used for the other. In either case there will be
> phonological mangling to some degree.
That I will discover when I know just how BrSc will settle down :)
[Gua\spi stuff snipped - but read with interest]
>> Is it, indeed? I was wondring if something between the paucity of
>> Speedwords and the exuberance of CY (and xuxuxi) might not be better -
>> say around 40 200 to 40 300?
> I concluded that WordNet was unusable, at least directly, because although
> it discriminated senses well, it did not provide any usable derivational
> morphology, and was too big a strain on memorization.
Yes, I've come to much the same conclusion.
>> ? I thought you said it was an auxlang (tho admittedly an 'unorthodox'
>> one) . AllNoun grammar is certainly unusual for an auxlang :)
> Well, it certainly favors simplicity!
Yes - only one part of speech. I've toyed from time to time with "AllVerb"
I believe some even tried to persuade me to use it for BrSc.
>>> and a unique phonology.
>> John, you post mails saying "Test, please ignore", thereby inviting
>> people to open it. Now you finish an email with "an a unique phonology"
>> (period! ). You darn well know that of all matters linguistic,
>> phonology interests me probably more than all others!
> "Unique" does not mean "unusual"; on the contrary.
Ah, the ambiguities of natural language.
Yep - I stirred old memories. I remember it now - the vowel disharmony
is usual, I think.