Henrik Theiling wrote:
> Hi!
>
> R A Brown <ray@...> writes:
[snip]
>>But in my case, I have specifically ruled out idiomatic compounding
>>from Piashi, it being an engelang.
>
> Interesting. My nextnextnext project (which does not even have a
> sketch yet since my current project (engelang Tesäfköm) does not make
> much progress, but urgently needs to be continued) will probably have
> componding again to keep my life interesting. Will you use regular
> derivation with only few roots like polysynthetic (enge)langs?
No - for the simple reason it doesn't seem to work. I do not want to
replicate the things that I have criticized Speedwords for. This means
that affixes need to be _precisely_ defined. I cannot have vaguely
defined concepts like "association", "special", "general" which then in
practice overlap one another in quite unpredictable ways. And if there
to be antonym & complement affixes, these need to be clearly defined and
applied strictly & consistently.
As to compounding of lexical morphemes, I have no problem with that
per_se, but I do not want to have idiomatic compounding.
> If so,
> will also rule out lexical specialisation of derived words? Or will
> you assign one totally unrelated word to each given concept?
A given concept will have its own word. One aim of Piashi is to be a
briefscript. Having long compounds somewhat mitigates against that.
> Or it is something inbetween?
There will be some use of affixes.
>Or something totally different? I'm curious!
Something totally different? I don't know what that would be. I must
confess that the creation of its vocabulary has been the greatest
stumbling block and still exercises me. This is basically what has held
up the development of the language. Maybe it's that "something totally
different" which I need ;)
--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
MAKE POVERTY HISTORY