Re: Terkunan: rules for deriving nouns, verbs, adjectives

Hi!

Jörg Rhiemeier writes:
>...
> The problem, Henrik,
Please add 'i think' more often, because given your absolutive style
of writing, it becomes increasingly hard for me to stay calm.

But I know you mean well, so I will answer calmly.

> is that you appliy the GMP to *artificially
> extracted roots* - units that would *never* exist for themselves
> in the natural evolution of the language.
Wait, please.  I think you are mixing up layers of the construction
now.  It is vital to distinguish the tool from the goal.

In the red boxes, I speak as a conlanger.  This layer is obviously
utterly unnatural.  Of course, since Terkunan does not exist as a
natural language, but is a conlang.  The red boxes show which
algorithms and methods I use.

But please consider that these technicalities have a reason.  They are
not there for the sake of being technical.  They are there because I
use the computer as a tool to produce a certain result.

The *method* is unnatural, of course, but what it simulates is not.

The method is meant to simulate exactly what you require: a
deterioration of the endings.  That's why I use -/@m/ as an accusative
ending: for most words, it is just a speed up: if you read the GMP
thoroughly, you will find that for most words, using the original -am,
-um, -em produces the same result, because the reduction of final
vowel is taken care of.  For the rest of the words, I alter the input
to simulate effects the GMP currently does not account for.

In short: I think I do exactly what you want me to do.

**Henrik