Re: Most developed conlang

In a message dated 4/20/2007 6:43:52 AM Central Daylight Time,
theiling@ABSINT.COM writes:


> > "-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'.
>
Okay, I can do that.


> 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
>
   </HTML>

Reply