At 5:39 am +0100 15/5/02, And Rosta wrote:
>Jeffrey:
>> Dublex is an engineered language whose
>> primary design goal is to develop a maximally effective minimal set of root
>> words.
Yes, Jeffrey's list of Dublex compounds was very instructive. It confirms
to my mind that compounding will not enhance BrSc's compactness any more
than it enhanced Speedwords. It also seems to me to underline the
drawbacks of relying heavily on compounds.
>
>Lastly, I have the impression that in natlangs that have relatively
>small inventories of roots, these roots tend to have rather fuzzy
>meanings that get applied to new concepts by means of chains of
>polysemy.
I have this impression also.
----------------------------------------------------
At 6:08 am +0100 15/5/02, And Rosta wrote:
[snip]
>(unambigously analysable) compounds. I don't see much advantage in
>a *regularized* rafsioid scheme of the sort you describe. Overall, I
>think compounding is very overrated.
I'm coming to that conclusion also.
Ray.
=======================================================
The median nature of language is an epistemological
commonplace. So is the fact that every general
statement worth making about language invites a
counter-statement or antithesis.
GEORGE STEINER.
=======================================================