Re: Most developed conlang

And what exactly is so ghastly about automated processes?


On 4/20/07, And Rosta <and.rosta@...> wrote:
> Among the candidate definitions of 'word' in Anna-Maria Di Sciullo and Edwin
> Williams's (1987) _On the Definition of Word_ is what they call 'listeme',
> namely something that has to be listed because its properties are not wholly
> predictable from its parts. IMO 'listeme' comes closest to the definition
> most relevant for assessing vocab size as an index of a conlang's degree of
> development. Each listeme must be individually created by the conlanger (--
> I set aside ghastly automated processes).
>
> --And.
>
> Dirk Elzinga, On 20/04/2007 20:58:
> > On 4/20/07, MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com <MorphemeAddict@...>
> > wrote:
> >> In a message dated 4/20/2007 6:43:52 AM Central Daylight Time,
> >> theiling@ABSINT.COM writes:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> > To get back to a more productive level of conversation, how would you
> >> > classify actor words in '-er', like 'speaker'?  '-er' is a quite
> >> > productive derivation ending, more so than '-ment'.  If you decide
> >> > those are one word, then what is the required productivity level you
> >> > start to unify two 'words' into one?
> >> >
> >>
> >> "-er" can be applied to just about any English verb.  So words in "-er"
> >> shouldn't count as separate words from the verb.
> >>
> >> > Then what about 'speak' vs. 'speaking'?  One word or two? ('-ing' is
> >> > almost universally productive, I think)
> >> >
> >> Same with "-ing", only more so.
> >>
> >> > 'thorough' vs. 'thoroughly'?
> >> >    -> -ly can almost universally be used
> >> >
> >> Same: only one word with a derivative.
> >>
> >> > 'move' vs. 'moved'?
> >> >    -> '-(e)d' is probably less universal than '-er'
> >> >
> >> Taking "-(e)d" to be a pass tense morpheme and/or past participle
> >> ending, and
> >> thus including forms such as "was", "went", "gone", I believe these
> >> words are
> >> regular derivatives and should not count as separate words.
> >>
> >>
> >> > 'hot' vs. 'dog' vs. 'hotdog'?
> >> >    -> non-predictable composition of meaning, so a new word?
> >> >
> >> This, on the other hand, should definitely be counted as separate and
> >> distinct words, largely because the meaning of "hotdog" is not
> >> derivable from "hot" +
> >> "dog".
> >>
> >>
> >> > Or is your measure the distinction of inflection vs. derivation?
> >> > Is this useful for languages like Inuktitut?
> >> >
> >> I've been using 'derivation' to include inflection.  Inflected forms
> >> should
> >> not count as separate words.  Completely predictable derivations
> >> should also
> >> not count as separate words.  But derivatives which can't be predicted
> >> should
> >> count as separate words, because part of the information contained in the
> >> derivative that is not contained in the base word is the very fact
> >> that such an
> >> unpredictable derivative can be made.
> >> I don't know about Inuktitut.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, if pairs such as "develop/development" are
> >> considered to
> >> be one basic word, then the number of words of the pair's language may be
> >> significantly lower than if they're considered separate words.
> >>
> >> stevo
> >>
> >> > **Henrik
> >
> > Two things occurred to me in watching this exchange. First, stevo
> > seems to be assuming a "dual-route" model of morphological processing,
> > and second, by his criterion of complete predictability, all of
> > Henrik's examples count as processes which create new words.
> >
> > First, since the term 'dual-route' may not be familiar to all, let me
> > explain briefly. One definition of the lexicon assumes that it
> > contains only the information that is unpredictable (this isn't the
> > only definition, but I'll use it since it seems to advantage stevo's
> > claims); anything that is predictable is provided by rule. Regular
> > word formation, by definition, is predictable, so words formed in this
> > way will not be included in the lexicon. However, if the word
> > formation process is unpredictable, the result of applying it to a
> > base must be listed separately in the lexicon, thus creating a new
> > word. Hence, 'dual-route': one route is the regular application of a
> > rule of grammar creating a word "on the fly", the other route is
> > accessing a word already existing in lexical memory.
> >
> > The dual-route model is not universally accepted, however. There are
> > many linguists (including me) who believe that all morphological
> > processing (and probably all phonological processing) is done on the
> > basis of whole words used as analogical models or exemplars for novel
> > forms (thus the "single-route" of lexical access). That is, we know
> > that '-er' is a suffix because we recognize it on a large number of
> > words--not because it is provided by a rule of grammar.
> >
> > Second, I can find examples of irregular or unpredictable usages of
> > each of the suffixes Henrik mentions. Just to give one example: the
> > suffix '-er' is used to form agentive nouns from verbs; thus 'runner'
> > is "one who runs". But it can also be used to form nouns denoting
> > instruments; thus 'blender' is "an instrument with which one blends".
> > 65 years ago the word 'computer' was understood as an agentive noun
> > "one who computes", and large companies which depended on numerical
> > analysis hired many people to perform numerical calculations. Now we
> > understand the word 'computer' as an instrumental noun. So the result
> > of adding this suffix to a stem is not entirely predictable, and thus
> > words formed by it must be listed separately in the lexicon.
> >
> > It won't do to say "Yeah, but I mean the 'productive' use of the
> > suffix" without defining your criteria for productivity. Even then,
> > it's not an "either-or" proposition; you will find word formation
> > processes arrayed on a continuum from highly productive to highly
> > unproductive. Dividing the continuum at *any* point will be arbitrary.
> >
> > Dirk
> >
>

--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>