On 5/9/05, Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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.

I didn't want to compound everything, but sometimes it's based off of ideas I get from real life examples. For instance, instead of calling the southern portion of Monterey Bay the "Dunes" it's often referred to in maps as the "Sand Hills" (which have been around for millions of years). That's where I took the idea in Ayhan from. Also the fact that considering the geography, there really aren't dunes where the Saalangal live anyway.  But, i think too many compounds is a bit of a cheater way to make up new words.

And compounding can become unwieldy, the problem of
philosophical/categorizing langs. that try to analyze concepts into
indivisible semantic units.

Some of the compounds I come up with I sometimes won't like, so I try to do a work around with derivation. If that doesn't work i'll generally coin a new root word for it. But, I think it's unrealistic in a naturalistic language to have every idea an entire root word. Even Spanish, which seems to be a lot more shy than English with compouding and preferring derivation (to me, at least), has a good many. A local placename here is "Asilomar" meaning "Sea Asylum" or "Sea Haven".

Remember Kids, only you can prevent misdirected replies! Pay attention to the "send to" line!


They'll have a big parade for every day that you stay clean
But when the trumpets fade, you'll go under like a submarine
And you won't see it coming,  no you won't see it coming