Re: Most developed conlang

In a message dated 4/20/2007 3:03:10 PM Central Daylight Time,
dirk.elzinga@GMAIL.COM writes:


> 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.
>
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.

Another example of an irregular use of a common ending in English is the
"-ing" in "building", which has the meaning of something "built".

stevo   </HTML>

Reply