From: | Leon Lin <leon_math@...> |
---|---|

Date: | Tuesday, January 9, 2007, 22:01 |

Thanks for the quick reply and welcome. >How to you construct the result? Am I missing something? No, I just made those up to show what I meant. > And for a phonology that is that simple (say, 5 vowels + 20 consonants), you'll exceed the available syllable when you define only six roots as prime numbers: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13. Here, 11 * 13 cannot be mapped uniquely to one of 100 syllables anymore. < Hmm, I didn't realize that. (Neither can 11 * 11 be done, either.) But repeated roots are normally nonsense, so we can get rid of all composites with repeated numbers in their prime factorizations (i.e. leaving only square-free numbers). The ordering of different roots can also mean different things. That opens up a lot of space for... for... bla, forget about prime numbers. My point is that I think there still lots of room with a phonology as simple as that. Don't forget diphthongs (languages without them (Ygyde) are few)! Leon Henrik Theiling <theiling@...> wrote: Hi! Leon Lin writes:> Hello! I'm new here.Welcome to the list! :-)>... > According to Wikipedia: A synthetic language, in linguistic typology, is a > language with a high morpheme-per-word ratio. How about high lexeme-per-word > ratio languages (is there a name for this (polysynthetic?))? We already have > those, like the oligosynthetic Ygyde. But Ygyde makes a whole new syllable > for every lexeme added. I was thinking putting them into one syllable (or > how ever many syllables the original lexemes had themselves): > > ba + bi = be? > pi + ku = ty? > maba + qubi = nobe? > mama + papa = ??How to you construct the result? Am I missing something? Or is this already some mathematical structure that produces seemingly arbitrary syllables that are not connected phonologically? The above looks like you are doing this phoneme-wise by some 'average' phoneme, however that is defined.>... > Mathematically this problem is quite simple. We can use prime numbers for > root lexemes and composite numbers can be the compounds of the prime numbers > that multiply to it. Thanks to the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, every > number has a unique prime factorization.Of course, the numbers grow quite quickly this way and so you need longer words. If you take Ygyde, which uses *all* its possible syllables as roots IIRC, there is nothing left to use for composite numbers. And for a phonology that is that simple (say, 5 vowels + 20 consonants), you'll exceed the available syllable when you define only six roots as prime numbers: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13. Here, 11 * 13 cannot be mapped uniquely to one of 100 syllables anymore. Do I misunderstand your idea? Anyway, since human languages hardly work on numbers but on phonological units, this is quite a theoretical construction not used in natlangs.> I am interested in such languages but so far I haven't found > one. Maybe I'll be the first to make one.That's what conlangs are for. :-) **Henrik __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com