Re: Dublex/Katanda hybrid

From: "And Rosta" <a-rosta@...>
> Mike S:
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > I am still tinkering with self-segregating morphologies,
> > and, inspired by the root-forming system of Morneau's Katanda,
> > and the basic morphology of Dublex and Vorlin, came up
> > with the following hybrid model.  I don't think I'll be
> > using it myself, but I submit it for your curiosity.
>
> I'll offer a few criticisms/comments.
>
> > C ::= (one of the following)
> >   p t c=[tS] k f s h=[S] x b d j=[dZ] g v z y=[Z] w=[G] m n q=[N] l r
> >
> > V ::= a | e | i | o | u
> >
> > Particle := C V V
> >
> > Primitive ::= C V C
> >
> > Semiroot ::= C V
> >
> > Root ::= [ Semiroot ] Primitive
> >   where [] indicates zero or more occurances
> >
> > Consonants and vowels are pronounced like their IPA equivalents
> > unless indicated otherwise.  They appear freely in the
> > three basic morph types as shown except /q/ may not start
> > a morpheme. In diphthongs, /i/ and /u/ become glides; vowel
> > pairs such as /ae/ are rendered as two syllables with any
> > glottal consonant.  An unwritten buffering schwa occurs
> > between words that would otherwise yield a geminate or
> > an overly difficult consonant cluster.
>
> This gives 20 x 6 = 120 monosyllabic/3-segment particles and
> 20 x 19 = 380 disyllabic/4-segment particles.
You are reading that there six monosyllables out of 25 vowel
pairs.  Do you mean specifically /ai/, /ei/, /oi/, /au/, /eu/,
and /ou/?  /i/ and /u/ could be rendered as glides as the
first vowel too, e.g. /sua/ = [swa].

Mea culpa for not making the original phonological description
fully clear.  To clarify: I am not overly concerned with the
exact phonological realization of the vowel pairs, insofar
as the pronunciation does not impede the analysis of a vowel
pair as a sequence of two vowel phonemes.  For concision,
I suggest that a "native" speaker render any combination
of a high vowel and a non-identical vowel as a monophthong.
Thus, /ai/ will usually be rendered as [aj] where [j] here
indicates any fronting & rising glide approximating [i], but
also acceptable are [a i], [a ?i], and [a hi].  However, between
two identical highs, and between any two non-highs, a glottal
consonant *is* required: /ii/ must be [i ?i] or [i hi], and
/ae/ must be [a ?e] or [a he].  (Glottal stop preferred btw).

> > Note that there are 21 consonants, but one can't be used
> > initially, so we have 20 permutations in these cases.
> >
> > Particles can be defined as prefixes, suffixes, or neither,
> > depending on whatever syntax gets cooked up.  There are
> > 20 x 5 x 5 = 500 of these in our morpheme space, giving
> > us a fair bit of flexibility.
> >
> > Primitives are the basic content words of the language.
> > There are 20 x 5 x 21 = 2100 of these available.
>
> The combination of one or more CV semiroots following
> by a CVV particle has not been exploited in this scheme,
> which is wasteful. You could treat disyllabic CVV as
> further inisolable primitives, and allow semiroots in
> combination with monosyllabic particles to yield further
> complex particles.
This is a good point, and prompts the question: why not go
one step further and actually merge the particles into the
primitives?  I see no reason not to:

Primitive ::= C V C  |  C V V

Semiroot ::= C V

Primitives now may be either content words or structure words;
semiroots may be derived from any primitive.  This will allow
structure words to be combined more efficiently.

> > Semiroots are formed by clipping a consonant off the end
> > end of a primitive.  There are only 20 x 5 = 100 distinct
> > semiroots, each directly corresponding with 21 primitives.
> > When being used in a root, a semiroot may assume ANY of
> > the 21 meanings associated with it;  furthermore, the
> > semantic relationship between the semiroot and primitive
> > is not precisely defined.  If several semiroots are attached
> > to a primitive, there is nothing indicating the grouping
> > precedence among the root components.  Perhaps the best
> > way to think of the compositional system here is to think
> > of acronyms with a hundred letters to choose from instead
> > of 26.  Acronyms are not reversable on sight, but they
> > are terse and easily memorizable.
>
> A drawback with this is that there are no cranberry morph
> extensions of primitives, since every semiroot has one of
> a hundred possible meanings. If none of those 100 meanings
> is semantically appropriate, then one will have to be
> chosen completely or relatively arbitrarily, which will
> tend to dilute and contaminate the effectiveness of the
> system.
The way I envision it, each of the 100 semiroots will indeed
manifest a single meaning when combined with *some* primitives.
For example, if a primitive reprepresents a mathematical root
of some sort, we can be all but certain that any attached
semiroot will be representing its associated numeric or
mathematical primitive, if it has one.

On the other hand, the majority of primitives will probably
not impose such an a priori limitation on the range of possible
meanings of their attached semiroots.  In these cases, the 100
semiroots are explicitly polysemous in regards to modifying
their header-primitive, and thus there are many more than the
100 possible meanings that you mention to choose from.  Even
though I have not actually worked out a lexicon, judging from
Morneau's work I am speculating that, with a little care in
assigning primitives, we will be able to find semantically
justifiable combinations far more often than not.  And to
be clear, once we have found a combination that is appropriate,
the semiroot is no longer polysemous; the root will be defined
precisely.

Of course, there will be many times when we *will* have
a problem finding a satisfactory combination to create a new
word.  What I think will happen in these cases is that we
will think up a *paraphrase* and then extract an acronymic
combination of semiroots which will be attached to a semantically
precise primitive.  Let me give you one hypothetical illustration
of how this might work out.

Let's say lasers have just been invented, and as a brand new
concept, we need to coin a new word for them.

The word will represent a new device.  In our language, let's
say that this is "dev", which means specifically an artificial,
invented device, and not a functional description like "lever"
(which can be any solid object so used) and not something
non-concrete as "rhetorical device".  So, we know immediately
that our primitive header will be "dev".

Now, there is no word in our vocabulary that describes what
this device does, so we are forced to paraphrase the device's
function as:

"light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation"

These words themselves might be composite roots.  Without
going to the trouble of inventing the actual words and
corresponding syntax, let's presume that the first two letters
of each of the five main content words turn out to be:

"lu pa ti mi ra"

So, the inventers of this device decide to call it a
"lupatimiradev".

Now, on first sight, there is no possibility that anyone
will be able to guess exactly what a "lupatimiradev" is, but
one will know at least two things about it: first, that it
is some sort of invention; second, that it is a peculiar
and probably a novel item.  A person will know the latter
because the length of the word suggests the verbosity
of the paraphrase.  By convention, few common roots will have
more than two semiroots;  any number greater than two is
a clear signal that the word is in the domain of specialized
jargon, or is a neologism.  It can be seen in English that
verbosity is often related to register and politeness:
"avian management professional" somehow sounds more
elevated than "chicken farmer".  In our language, verbosity
serves a strictly practical purpose.

When upon inquiry a person learns the meaning of the new
device, the word's semiroots will make sense; I believe
that paraphrases and acronyms tend to reinforce each other
in the memory.

Now, as it turns out, lasers did not remain in the domain
of specialized technology for very long, but rather found
many diverse applications in the larger world and are
these days entirely commonplace.  In such a case, it is
inevitable that a word shorter than "lupatimiradev" will
be desired.  Revisiting the paraphrase, we can now reduce
the paraphrase to "light amplification" and give a final
form to the word laser as "lupadev".  The reason for not
doing this from the beginning is that "light amplification"
is too vague to convey the actual function of a laser
before it is widely understood.  ("Light amplification"
might refer to increasing the brightness of lightbulbs
for all we know.)  Years later, when lasers are everywhere
and most people have a basic idea of the function, an
abbreviated form is warranted.

As far as the objection that meaning of the semiroots will
become diluted, I am not sure this is inevitable though
I concede it is possible.  Even if this occurs, I do not
believe this would compromise the effectiveness of the
system.  Any word can simply be interpreted as a separate
lexical entry; as we have seen, longer forms are essentially
acronymns anyway.  At the very least, the primitive-header
will keep each word within certain semantic bounds.

I am going to break for dinner; if I have any more comments,
I'll post them later.  Thanks for the reply.

---   Mike