Print

Print


On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Melroch <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Similarly the fact that modern spoken Esperanto has no clear
> division between compounding and derivation or indeed between derivation
> and subordination may be an example of such grammar reduction with an
> efficiency gain.

Could you expand on that?

The distinction between roots and affixes seems to have been abandoned
around the 1920s -- that's the earliest I know of when affixes start
getting used as stand-alone words, or we see compounds built purely of
"affixes" with no "roots".  I can sort of see you would consider that
a "grammar reduction" along the same lines as the limited subset of
Sanskrit you describe; it simplifies the morphology if we don't need
to distinguish between unlike types of morpheme (although it's not
quite that simple; some of the original "affixes" are still arguably
affixes, with special rules for use that aren't just an application of
the general compounding rules).  But I'm not sure what you mean by "no
clear division between .... derivation and subordination".

-- 
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
http://www.jimhenrymedicaltrust.org