Re: Most developed conlang

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

Replies