Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Polysemy

From:Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>
Date:Monday, November 17, 2003, 19:37
On Sunday, November 16, 2003, at 03:56 PM, Andreas Johansson wrote:

> Quoting Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>:
>> Is this modest degree of polysemy tolerable? > > I cannot see anything wrong with it in principle, but remind me why vowel > letters shouldn't be used; _dmet_, _dmot_. Looks alot more like actual > words.
At present it is proposed to use vowels as cements between lexical morphemes in compounds, thus: i between front-vowel and front-vowel morphemes, e.g. ftibl /"fiti'pEli/ e between front-vowel and back-vowel morphemes, e.g. ftebl /"fiti'pOlu/ o between back-vowel and front-vowel morphemes, e.g. ftobl /"futu'pEli/ u between back-vowel and back-vowel morphemes e.g. ftubl /"futu'pOlu/ The ' and - cements join a lexical morpheme to a string of one or more suffixes. For example, ft-pl /"futubOlu/ has _three_ morphemes, viz. ft+p+l ========================================================================= ======= On Sunday, November 16, 2003, at 06:52 PM, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote: [snip]
> The problem is that most people would begin > to think of the cement as part of the root.
In a way, I suppose, they are. But they will not always be written - only where the cement is needed. BTW, I may well use a different term - but Srikanth's coinage seems quite convenient, at least pro_tem. Ray =============================================== (home) (work) ===============================================


Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>