Print

Print


--- Charlie wrote:
--- In [log in to unmask], Kelvin Jackson <kechpaja@...> wrote:
>
> Unless most nouns are derived from verbs, via a system regular
> enough that the derived forms would not be included in the 
> dictionary. But that doesn't sound like the case here.

But that is the case here. The words in the wiki.frath lexicon are the basic words from which the others are made.  I have not counted them but I must have close to 10,000 words in the Senjecan vocabulary.  They are all made from the 2,000+ words in the lexicon.  And they are all in my Word document dictionary.

As an example:
simha 1) t.v. sew, stitch, tack. 2) i.v. sew, stitch. -a = indicative mood, the lemma.
simhas, sewing. -as = abstract noun.
simheros, eye of a needle. -eros = hole.
simhkerdos, needlework, stitchery. -kerdos = craft.
simhos, stitch. -os = concrete noun.
simhuros, [sewing] needle. -uros = instrument.
simhus, seamstress. -us = agent.
-------------------------------

Yes, that's how I remember your language being structured, from previous posts.

Kash is similar and would probably be verb-heavy too-- each verb can have at least two possible noun derivatives, plus compounds; not to mention that adjectives also function as verbs. And a few forms can be either noun or verb, e.g. _sisa_ love, to love... what would one do with that?