Re: Most developed conlang

Regarding dual-routeand other fun subjects:

There are more theories to lexical formation than aforementioned.
However, I must totally reject dual-route theories. For example, his
develop v. development listing is not "arbitrary" or unpredictable,
for develop falls into a certain category of verbs, not mutually
exclusive with other categories, that take the -ment ending when
denoting the process of performing action x. Development is the
process of developing. Likewise, construction is the process of
constructing.

It's even clearer in Latin; you can take any perfect passive
participle and add an -io ending in loco -us, and it becomes a verbal
noun denoting the process of performing the action of the verb.
However, the word comes from a clear origin: construo. But even that
is made up of the prefix con- and the root word stru(e)-. The reason
we can't see it in English is because English has a large developed
(no pun intended) vocabulary from different sources, including Old
English, Old French, Neo-Latin, etc...

Most linguists instead of using the dual-route method opt for lexical
entities that differ in meaning and generally semantic category. Run
the verb and run the noun are usually distinguished. But running the
present participle falls under run the verb while running the gerund
(verbal noun) with all it's different meanings are separated from the
other run's.

However, even this is largely a linguo-centric practice. For example,
the ancient Roman grammarians, when giving the base word of a noun,
give it in the number of the derived noun. If it's plural genitive,
then they'd give it as plural nominative; if singular ablative, then
singular nominative.

Technically, any word that can be distinguished by meaning, counts as
a new word. The run in "I run" and the run in "they run" are not the
same word. Whether they deserve their own separate lexical entry
largely depends on the language, and not some arbitrary rule lumping
all languages together.

Chris Weimer