Re: Too bizarre?
|From:||Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>|
|Date:||Friday, November 14, 2003, 19:25|
On Friday, November 14, 2003, at 05:31 AM, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
> Ray, how are you going to get self-segregating
> morphology in the syllabary scheme? I guess
> you could simply declare that the three first
> syllables of any word is a root, but I for one
> would actually need to count them all the time!
But some will be two & others three, I think.
Actually, Dutton himself went to some lengths to
achieve quite a degree of morpheme segregation in
_spoken_ Speedwords. The only trouble was that it
didn't show up in the written language!
> Even so how would you handle compounds?
I'd have to use some method similar to that used by
Egyptologists whn transcribing ancient Egyptian in
Roman script, i.e. dots, dashes etc.
In fact the method suggested on my website uses the
vowel symbols in compounds; the vowels and other
symbols are used there rather like Srikanth's
"cements" in Lin.
Of course all this will need to be reflected in the
> IMNSHO the CVC scheme is/was genial, and part of
> it (I now realize) is that you can see on the spot
> what is a root on account of the presence of the
> vowel sign.
Absolutely - one drawback of the CVC scheme was that
the number of morphemes is limited and this may well
cause us to rely quite a bit on compounding; some CVCCVC
compounds are likely to be longer than their natlang
equivalents, which is not a good idea in a briefscript.
Also over reliance on compounding seems to give rise
to idiomatic compounding - at least this certainly the
experience of Speedwords and of Jeffrey Henning's Dublex.
But the CVC version is still there; it's called BrScA :)
> Or are you sacrificing self-segregating morphology?