> I hadn't looked that closely at the list either, but I suspect you're 
> right.
> However, some adjectives in |-ic| also have a variant form in |-ical|:
> economic/economical, electric/electrical, geometric/geometrical,
> historic/historical, theoretic/theoretical
> While the alternants are not perfect synonyms, there doesn't seem to be a
> consistent meaning or function contributed by |-al|.
> As Roger points out, adding |-ally| is phonologically 
> indistinguishable from
> merely adding |-ly|. So why does the orthography insist on it? It's a
> problem I think I'll look into ...
> --Ph. D.
> Dirk

    Why not measure language development based on the size of its 
corpus? Provided it is meaningful, the language needs to be fairly 
developed to endure, say... twenty pages. But maybe I'm counting too 
much on the good senses of my hypothetical conlanger...

    If we just count words, we need to decide what exactly to count. If 
each possible thing between (written...) spaces counts, then synthetic 
languages will win by far, artificially; if we exclude what is 
paradigmatic, we still need to choose the limits of the paradigm: from 
the singular/plural to each possible suffix (i'm thinking 
indo-europeanly, sorry ; ) ).

    Counting suffixes is problematic, too... because they are not, 
synchronically at least, words per se. Will slices of words count as 
words/'lexical entries' too? I think they are not entities by 
themselves... they need something to be attached, and a meaningful 
result thereof. If this necessity is accepted, that of meaning, then 
only words arranged meaningfully on a text would be counted, as the true 
realisation of each word's meaning.

     The problem, then, is how to find meaning. A good problem, given 
that those texts are by nature in a language foreign to most of us. But 
even texts in languages I know are fairly meaningless to me, and 
still... I hope... the writer meant to say something. Alas, what to do, 
then? Cry ; ). And stick with words with 'meaningful meaning', and 
that's much easier to see: just count entries at the dictionary. The 
rest must be paradigmatic.

    Well, but that was about development. Ah, just count the corpus. If 
it's translatable, and the translation is anything with sense, let it be...


(yep, I concluded while writing.)