Damian Yerrick wrote: > "Roger Mills" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Just an observation that's struck me over the last few weeks-- in > > deriving > > new vocab. items for Kash, in the vast majority of cases I come up with > > compounds or derivations of existing words. It takes definite effort to > > choose a form from the list of possibles..... > > > Have others, whose dictionaries are also quite large, faced this same > > problem? > > Better question is, is it a problem at all? > http://www.kisa.ca/tokipona/ > Wellllll... :-) Only insofar as I want to find the happy medium somewhere between every-concept-is-a-separate-lexeme and every-concept-is-a-compound. Both extremes are unreal. I once totted up the number of phonological possibles (allowing 1, 2 and 3 syl.forms)and it came to a million or so-- surely a burden on the memory. And compounding can become unwieldy, the problem of philosophical/categorizing langs. that try to analyze concepts into indivisible semantic units. Just my prejudices..... I must say, the replies I've gotten have been comforting.