Re: How to minimize "words" (was "Re: isolating conlangs")

Stevo wrote:
<<
I think you misunderstand.  "Word" is not poorly defined; it's one of
the
words that can't be defined using simpler words.  It's one of the NSM
base words.
"Character" is not a base word, nor is anything else to do with writing.
 >>

No, I think you misunderstand.  That "word" is not poorly defined
is your *opinion*--and the opinion of the creators of the NSM,
apparently--and not a fact.  There are many that hold the opposite
opinion--myself included--that "word" is poorly defined, and,
perhaps, has no real definition.  I don't have the article, but you
can read the first page of "On the Definition of Word" by Di Sciullo
and Williams here:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0097-8507(198812)64%3A4%3C766%3AOTDOW
%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7

I think the first couple of sentences summarizes the debate rather
nicely.

There's an entire book devoted to the multi-faceted notion of
"word" edited by Dixon and Aikhenvald that would probably
shed more light on the discussion:

Dixon, R. M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.) 2002.  A Cross-
linguistic Typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

One of the chapters inside, for example, is on the notion of "word"
in Modern Greek, the implication being that it is distinct from the
notion of "word" in any other language.  Even Matthews chapter
entitled "What can we conclude?" is a bit anticlimactic.  The conclusion
I drew is that there is no universal definition of "word" that's
useful, but that there are criteria that can be used to determine
what exactly a "word" is in a given language.  Going beyond a
single language is problematic, and generalizing to *all* languages
is even more problematic.

-David
*******************************************************************
"A male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison

http://dedalvs.free.fr/