|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@...>:[snip]
>> 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
At present it is proposed to use vowels as cements between lexical
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
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:
> 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.