On Sun, 3 May 2009 23:35:43 +0900, Jens Wilkinson <[log in to unmask]>
wrote in "The Sambahsa thread":
>On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Leo Ki <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> An IAL can (and should IMO) use something of that sort,
>> especially if it's heavily compounding. Ideally the writing should be
>> consistent with the spoken system, as is sometimes done in English
>> (black birdnest vs. blackbird nest which reflects two stress patterns).
>I'm afraid it would be difficult to adopt a system that would be easy
>to understand for all speakers. It may be a better way would be to be
>verbose, so to say, "a nest that belongs to a black bird," versus "a
>black nest, that belongs to a bird."
I agree that it's a more reliable system. However, a heavily compounding
language would be very snaily if it used it also for the most common compounds.
The stress system doesn't have to be unique, it can take different accents
depending on the speaker. France French, for instance, stresses the last
syllable of a word or phrase, while Swiss French tends to stress the first
syllable. It doesn't take long for either to get used to listen to the other
My project, which compounds enormously, needs a way to help the listener cut
phrases into words, and words into morphemes. For instance, "han yaki" is
"forest fire" (han: fire, yaki: forest), but "hanya ki" could make sense in
the future as the language grows: "spreading fire in wood" or something.
In a French/Japanese way, the morphemes han and ki would get the pitch
accent in "han yaki", while in "hanya ki" the accent would be on "ya" and
"ki" or only on "ki". In an English/Spanish way, "han yaki" would be
stressed on han and ya, or just han, and "hanya ki" would be stressed on han
and ki. Chinese could use a distinguish tone on the stressed syllables of
Uh, maybe I mess it up too much? ^^