Re: Most developed conlang

Hi!

MorphemeAddict writes:
> In a message dated 4/18/2007 12:26:51 PM Central Daylight Time,
> markjreed@MAIL.COM writes:
>
> > Uhm, huh?  "develop", as a verb, is certainly a "black box word" at
> > this point, but "development" is "develop" + "-ment".   The suffix
> > -ment may not be universally productive, but the meaning of sticking
> > it on the end of a verb is nevertheless predictable.  (This thing I'm
> > typing may not be a "communicatement", but even though that word
> > doesn't actually exist in the English lexicon, its intended meaning is
> > transparent.)  To be sure there are affix uses in English that result
> > in words with meanings that would not be predicted from the component
> > parts, but "development" is not such a case.
> >
>
> "-ment" is not a predictably productive suffix, and it cannot be applied to
> words arbitrarily.  The fact that this suffix has a predictable meaning is
> irrelevant.  "Develop" and "development" must count as two words.
Please consider using a more polite way to state your opinion.
Whether or not they count as two words is definitely a matter of
discussion.  So please something like 'I think it should be' instead
of 'must'.

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?

Then what about 'speak' vs. 'speaking'?  One word or two? ('-ing' is
almost universally productive, I think)

'thorough' vs. 'thoroughly'?
   -> -ly can almost universally be used

'move' vs. 'moved'?
   -> '-(e)d' is probably less universal than '-er'

'hot' vs. 'dog' vs. 'hotdog'?
   -> non-predictable composition of meaning, so a new word?

Or is your measure the distinction of inflection vs. derivation?
Is this useful for languages like Inuktitut?

**Henrik

Reply