--- On Wed, 5/6/09, Leo Ki <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> steve rice <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >My a priori project Pesu uses phoneme segregation to
> isolate morphemes:
> since /s/ belongs to a class that begins the final syllable
> (and /p/ does
> not), the boundaries are clear regardless of stress. And -n
> marks a bound
> morpheme, clarifying the word boundaries for compounds.
> It's not foolproof,
> of course--slurred pronunciation can still lead to
> incorrect resolution--but
> it makes it easy to speak distinctly, which should be good
> enough.
> Do you have a web site for Pesu? Google found nothing, and
> the List archive
> returned just snippets.

A personal project only so far. I decided to cease work on it until I better understood how to select a basic vocabulary. Then I created an a posteriori version (same grammar, different only lexically) called Linu to help me work out the lexical problems. Inlis is mostly an anglicized Interglossa, but some of its lexicon derives from Linu. In fact, it's harmonizing IG and Linu components that's the current problem.
> Do I guess it right that Pesu morphemes are of the form
> <class I
> consonant>V(<class M consonant>V)(<class F
> consonant>V)?

Simply put, certain consonants (called "final consonants") always introduce the final syllable. (Syllables are either open or end in a nasal.) So any group of syllables with non-final consonants is the first part of a word; the word only ends after a final consonant occurs. I'm going to modify the morphology a bit whenever I have the time.
> My project has very few polysyllabic morphemes so far, but
> if they grow too
> many I'll probably redesign everything and pick a way to
> segregate the
> second syllable: a few reserved syllables or a few reserved
> consonants or
> one reserved vowel (the "e" vowel of the 4-vowel system I
> talked about some
> time ago).

Most Pesu morphemes are bisyllabic (currently CV(N)FV, where N is a generic nasal and F is a final consonant). My lexical philosophy is to have a large number of generic terms I can make specific when necessary by modification or compounding, though in clear context the generic form alone should suffice.
> How does your -n mark work? Is it head-final,
> <complement>n<head>?

Compounding and modification are head final. Note that the morphology can yield a near ambiguity since "pensu" is a legitimate form, and "ben su" is as well. But although that could be garbled, again, the goal is to simplify clarity, not require it at gunpoint.
> But even with long and self-segregating morphemes, frequent
> compounding will
> generate ambiguity. If not stress/pitch/contour, maybe
> parenthesis operator
> morphemes could help, they function very similarly. I seem
> to recall lojban
> and a few other langs have them.

The internal structure of compounds can technically be ambiguous, and I could provide ways of clarifying them. However, in context true ambiguity will hardly ever occur. As a rule, compounds should be reserved for concepts too frequent to be circumlocuted (as Jens suggested) but not common enough to warrant their own word. Anything intricate enough to require clarification will be uncommon enough to circumlocute.