Re: Most developed conlang

On 4/20/07, MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com <MorphemeAddict@...> wrote:
>
> Your suggestion of a dual-route model is precisely what I had in mind,
> although it is less applicable to English (and natlangs in general) than to certain
> conlangs.
Fair enough. But it seems to me that if a model of language is
inadequate for natural languages (as I believe the dual-route model
is), using it for constructed languages is misguided. It may be
convenient as a descriptive strategy, but only that. I hasten to add
that in my documentation of Tepa (and of Shemspreg) I adopt this model
of description myself--observable in the fact that the word lists for
each contains only stems and not fully formed words. But my original
point was that even if it is not included in the word list, a form
derived by the application of a word formation process should
nevertheless be considered a word in its own right and not just a
derivative of some stem. Because of this, simply counting up the
number of forms in a word list is a misleading indication of the
lexical richness of a language.

> Another example of an irregular use of a common ending in English is the
> "-ing" in "building", which has the meaning of something "built".
Nice. I was thinking of 'lightning' and 'evening' as well.

> stevo   </HTML>
Dirk

Reply