Re: Thoughts on Word building

Hi!

I seem to have hit a nerve.  Why?  I'll try to clarify.

Taka Tunu writes:
> Henrik Theiling wrote:
> Don't mix up derivation and compounding.
>
> Where did my post mix them up?
My impression was as follows: as you mentioned Chinese and Japanese
(which usually do not use derivation, but compounding) and called it
'derivational suffixes', I thought you mixed them up.  Obviously I
overinterpreted the juxtaposition.

> >>>
> Chinese is full of very different kinds of compounds, where the meaning often
> cannot easily be derived from the parts -- the new meaning is ad-hoc and then
> lexicalised, and not predictably derivable. It usually does not make
> use of derivation, but of compounding.
> <<<
>
> I have an opposite experience with Sino-Japanese vocabulary and for
> my conlang I personnally use the very consistant compounds that do
> exist. But you are free not to and to pick the least consistant
> ones.
Hmm, hopefully someone has figures, otherwise discussing what is more
frequent is probably leading to nothing but, errm, discussion.

Perhaps we could start with a few examples: what derivational suffixes
have you seen in Chinese or Japanese?  Can you give some examples of
how your derivation works?

I in turn will start by giving some compounds (in Chinese, my Japanese
is too bad):

   xiong3di4   - brothers   - 'elder brother' + 'younger brother'
   di4tu2      - map        - 'earth' + 'picture/diagram'
   dian4nao3   - computer   - 'lightning/electric' + 'brain'
   da4xue3     - University - 'big' + 'learn'
   zhong1guo2  - China      - 'middle' + 'country'
   wang2guo2   - kingdom    - 'king'   + 'country'
   ai4guo2     - patriotism - 'love'   + 'country'

There are some derivational suffixes, I think, e.g. 'zhe3' in Chinese
for the agent ('-er' in English): 'xue2zhe3' - 'learner'.  Searching
Cedict does not seem to reveal any exception of this referring to an
agent and '-zhe3' being suffixed to anything but a verb.  Anyway, I
think that that is an exception and that the majority of words are
ad-hoc compounds.  But we'll need figures for comparison.

> I don't use the kanjis per se but the list of concepts they comprehend (some
> have several concepts, other one are redundant.)
Ah, I see.  That might of course change everything in your conlang.

> I find it rather funny that you call Japanese vocabulary not
> "modern" enough and I cannot believe that you picture it as lacking
> scientific and philosophical terms given the level of profenciency
> that your comments must imply in either of these languages.
Right, I don't.  You seem to not have made myself understood, I think.
First of all, I talked about single Kanji, not about vocab in general.
Undoubtedly, the Kanji have a long history.  They were not invented
nowadays, but much earlier.  The most important things when they were
developed where not math, philosophy, etc., but food, craft, etc.

Therefore, there are Kanji for sheep, dog, cow, brush, red, white,
etc. but not for abstract things like distance, sentient, education,
not even for school IIRC.  That's all I wanted to say.  And there are
conlangers who feel the need for their languages to start with a
different set of atoms, a more philosophical, abstract lexicon puzzle,
maybe.  Of course, other conlangers do not feel this way.  It's all
just personal taste.

I really hope it's clear now what I meant by 'not modern'.  Is it?

> Whatever... Why did I bother write this post anyway?
To tell me that you disagree and think I misunderstood you, maybe?
A very good reason.

So do we disagree now?

**Henrik

Replies