Re: Telona grammar, part 2

Hi, Johnathan.    (and Hi to anyone else reading this)

Alas, I don't have time to respond to your latest post today.    I'll have
to wait till next week.

I still have one question.   I'm not sure if it applies to Telona, but it
may apply to other a priori conlangs.

Is it wise to construct a syntax in which all--or most--possible sequences
of morphemes constitute syntactically well-formed utterances?

Is it possible that constructing a conlang in this manner would increase the
chances that mistaken utterances would look well-formed, and so increase
misunderstandings among interolocutors?

(We can leave aside languages whose many bound morphemes result in
syntactically free word order:   IIRC, the order of morphemes within words
in such languages tends to be strict.)

Till next time,

Jim G.

Reply