Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Polysemy

From:Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>
Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2003, 13:37
Quoting Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>:

> 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 > > 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
But if the consonants indicated the vowels - as per the "bizarre" scheme - you wouldn't need more than one cement for compounds, yes? Then gl and brd would be monomorphemic words, lt-tk and gml-brd compounds (restoring the traditional function of the hyphen) and ltak and brod bisyllabic words with monoconsonantal affixes of various classes. I may still be misisng something ... Andreas


Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>