Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:33:31 -0500 (EST) release 1.8c) with spool id 3791979 for LANGDEV@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 14:16:14 -0400 14:16:13 -0400 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Approved-By: And Rosta Message-ID: <42C204E68@mail-gw.uclan.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 19:15:18 GMT+0 Reply-To: "language developers' discussion" Sender: "language developers' discussion" From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: [LANGDEV] compounding To: LANGDEV@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1497 Lines: 32 Rex: > While I'm asking questions, has anybody found a really good way to > distinguish compounds from modifier-modified strings? A really good > _unambiguous_ way? Yes. If I were doing a reformed Lojlan, I would adopt the following system: 1. Cmavo are C-V. 2. Gismu are C-C-V. 3. Lujvo formed from C1-C2-V + C3-C4-V are C1-C2-V-C5-C3-C4-V. Since the meaning of a lujvo is more than the sum of its parts, it is fitting that this extra specificity be signalled by the extra C5. This also allows many lujvo to be formed from the same gismu. C5 has the function of Lojban {zei}. 4. Tanru are brivla + tanru-linking-cmavo + brivla. I.e. a mere concatenation of brivla does not signal a tanru. 5. Brivla + brivla is construed as logical conjunction. In Livagian, which, as you know, is an artlang-cum-loglang rendition of a loglang-cum-natlang, there are no rules for forming compounds or for any other kind of derivational morphology. If the meaning of a compound is fully predictable from the meaning of its parts, then the compound is not necessary in the first place. If the meaning is only partly guessable from its parts then it doesn't really matter whether it's clear which parts a compound is made of. In Livagian you create a new word by whatever means you like - you can toss in some recognizable components if you like, but the only absolute rules are that the creation must be phonologically licit and must not produce homophony. --And