Re: head-initial structure

> > 4. Has anyone else tried exclusively head-first morphology in their
> > language? (head-first compounds & exclusive prefixing).
>
> Yes, in fact it sounds like you and I are on parallel trajectories,
> with the exception that, because my language will be relatively isolating,
> I am not sure that I am going to have prefixes yet.  As a general design
> principle, I decided a while ago that a viable "logical" language would
> be greatly enhanced by starting with a phonology, morphology, and
> syntax that is as simple and rigorous as possible--more specifically, it
> should have as few production rules as possible.  I think a VSO-NAR
> syntax of the sort you and I are contemplating goes along way towards
> achieving that simplicity.  The only reservation, however, that I have
> about VSO topography is that it embeds the subject in the middle
> of the clause--and since the subject is usually the most topical
> element of the clause, I would truly prefer it to be occur
> sentence-initially
> (and I suspect that it is for this very reason that a solid majority of
> natlangs are either SVO or SOV).  But although I may contemplate
> a SVO surface structure in the future, right now my slogan is,
> "start simple, you can always complexify later." Thus, VSO.
i'm considering having no inflectional affixes at all, with plurality and
tense appearing as quantifiers and auxiliary verbs. But, derivation will be
prefixing. Are you not doing derivation at all?

[snip]
> > it makes sense to me that if the plural is prefixing, then quantifiers
> would
> > also occur before a word. (doesn't necessarily happen in
> natlangs though,
> > like english: all car-s)
>
> It makes sense to me as well. Because the plural marker is really nothing
> more than a quantifier with the meaning "more than one", it
> should, I think,
> regularly appear wherever quantifiers are supposed to appear--and they
> do not need to be redundant either (no need to say the "s" in
> "three cars").
since i decided that my language will have a separate word for plural, it
will be mutually exclusive with numbers and quantifiers.

> As for word order, the only thing I myself have decided is to put the
> article
> in front.  I think several other positions are justifiable, (with
> of course
> the exception it should *not* appear after the relative clause.)
i'm thinking i'm going to switch determiners back to the front of the
NP(they're after it at the moment).

> Maybe it's time to dig up a book on Language Universals, and wherever
> logic does not have a preference, go with that...
For some reason the only universals i can find are only connections between
prefixes/suffixes and syntax, but not with compounding.

> Regards
> ---   Mike
--
Garrett Jones
http://www.alkaline.org