Print

Print


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.