2011/10/8 Peter Cyrus <[log in to unmask]>

> I've been reading a frequency dictionary of German, and am struck by
> how arbitrary the choice of the editors was in recognizing that
> inflected forms of verbs, for example, are "the same word", but not
> nominalizations or derivations.
>
> For example, in "Ich liebe dich", liebe is an inflected form of
> lieben.  But in "Meine Liebe für dich", it's a "different word".  From
> my point of view, they're the same word (e.g. to learn or remember).
>
>

I agree that they are the same _concept_ and happen to be the same word in
[Hisorical (High)] German.

In both cases, "liebe" originates from the 1st person. In "Ich liebe" it is
acted out by 1sp; and in "meine liebe" it belongs to 1sp.
And in both cases, "liebe" 'governs' the 2nd person. It is either acted out
upon "dich," or directed towards "dich."

=============COMPLETENESS==========


>  >
> > 2011/10/8 Matthew Martin <[log in to unmask]>:
> >> I'm looking for ideas for ways to evaluate if a language description is
> done, or
> >> if one language description is more done than the next, i.e. if I can't
> >> absolutely measure "doneness", maybe I can at least do rankings.  I
> think I
> >> have a some plausible rules of thumb for vocabulary-- at about 2000
> words,
> >> 80% of the commonly used words are documented, and the remaining 20% is
> >> 20,000 to 40,000 more words (or lexemes as the case may be).  Word
> >> counting is easy and a machine could do it.
> >>
> >> In a field linguistics textbook, the author suggested that there was a
> certain
> >> amount glossed and translated text of after which he stopped discovering
> new
> >> and interesting grammar.  So I figure if one conlang has only the Babel
> text
> >> translated an another has the Babel text and the UN Declaration on Human
> >> Rights translated and glossed, it's more complete than the former and a
> >> machine could evaluate that fact (although it wouldn't be able to
> evaluate if
> >> the glosses were any good!)  What other texts are reasonably widespread
> in
> >> their translation?
> >>
> >> Are there any other techniques that are especially quantifiable for
> evaluating
> >> how "done" a conlang is?
> >>
>

How done the conlang is = I agree with everyone else: it is never done.

But 'how done is the description of a conlang' = I think a description is
"done" when it covers or comments on all aspects of a language. I get the
impression that what you're asking is rather to "measure how in-depth the
description is."

"Syntax is VSO; Nouns have 3 cases; Verbs have 2 primary conjugations and
Modifiers distinguish between adjectives and adverbs." that (I feel) is a
pretty complete, although brief, description of Syrunian. It gives you an
overview and feel of the language.
A Wikipedia/Frathwiki article would be more in-depth and more useful; and a
Reference grammar would be even more in deapth and descriptive.

To me, they are all complete, because it covers all the aspects,
irrespective of length. A 50 volume series on the use and function of
Syrunian Nouns which includes examples, however, would not be complete
because it neglects other linguistic parts like verbs.

They would all have different functions; the appropriateness of a particular
type/ in-depthness of descitption would depend on what the description is
being used for. I think the Frathwiki article on Old Albic [
http://www.frathwiki.com/Old_Albic] is complete and in-depth enough to
satify most uses one could have for the conlang.

- Iuhan