Re: Most developed conlang

Henrik Theiling wrote:

> 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?
One thing about words like "speaker" is that they have additional
meanings of their own, not directly connected with the word they're
derived from. So although it's possible to use the word "speaker" for
someone who's speaking at the moment, or by extension, someone who has a
job connected with speaking, it's also a device which produces sound
waves from electrical impulses. When that kind of speaker makes a sound,
we don't say that it's "speaking". It must have got its name from being
used in telephones (which conventionally transmit voice messages), but
the connection with "speaking" has become tenuous.

> 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'
Well, it's true that many verbs have irregular past tenses and
participles. But the meaning of -ed is more predictable than -er. A
pitcher can be someone who throws a ball, or a container that is tilted
to pour liquid out from. But you wouldn't call someone who pitches a
tent a pitcher. A shaker is either a container for salt or pepper, or a
musical instrument that makes noise when shaken, but not just anything
that shakes.

It's not easy to find a word that someone hasn't added -er to derive a
word from. I thought of "like", but I managed to find a site using the
word "liker". You'd think that "sew" + "-er" would be blocked by
"sewer", but not so according to the dictionary.

> 'hot' vs. 'dog' vs. 'hotdog'?
>    -> non-predictable composition of meaning, so a new word?
Even so, usually written as two words, like "flying lemur". But you'd
need a separate entry in the lexicon for it. That's probably as good a
test as any. If the meaning can't be deduced from the components, so
that you need a lexicon entry specifically for the derived word or
compound, it can be counted as a new word. But deciding where to draw
the line between compounds and set phrases could get messy. Is "parking
lot" a word? "Up bow" (an articulation marking for bowed string
instruments, looking somewhat like a V)? "Anti-lock brakes"? "Bubble
sort algorithm"?

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

Reply