--- steve rice <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> > No, it's not. There is a second way, which is not
> to
> > have a derivational system. You might not think
> > that's
> > a good idea, but it is one choice, and actually
> the
> > choice I have made with Neo Patwa (Pandunia also,
> I
> > think). To make a word like "actor" you would have
> > to
> > use "act-person" or something like that. 
> And that's derivation. If there's no system, it's
> unnecessarily difficult derivation, that's all.
> Derivation doesn't require affixes, just a way to go
> from one concept to another. A system just
> simplifies
> matters, because users can more easily coin and
> decode
> derivations.

I suppose I used the term derivational incorrectly. I
meant it to denote a system with affixes and prefixes,
like -ando or -ing for example. If compounding is a
form of derivation, then I wouldn't be opposed to it
at all. In fact, I would find it hard to imagine a
language that doesn't have it. As far as a system is
concerned, my idea is that it should be based on
semantic units, like "eat-thing" or "eat-person", not
just "eat-er" as in English. 

Jens Wilkinson
Neo Patwa language:

Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.