On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:19:18 -0700
Leo Moser <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Yet over the last 700 - 500 years or so, what is now Mandarin evolved from
> Old Chinese into a LESS analytical language.
> This seemed to been necessitated in part by the decay(simplification) of the
> phonetic system. The need was to prevent excessive homophones.

It seems you confuse analytical with isolating.
In an isolating language you have one morpheme per word. 
In an analytical langauge you can have many morphemes per word, 
but grammar and root words are kept seperate.

What happened in Mandarin is a natural result of the erosion of language. 
People get lazy and pronounce fewer and fewer phonemes, thus making the words shorter.
The short words then become ambigious, so they have to put other words on for clarity.
In languages with phonetic scripts this wouldn't visibly impact the word count,
for instance English's future tense "will" turned into monophoneme 'll loosing much emphasis, 
so going-to phrase developed and then turned into the gonna word when it became a part of grammar.

However due to the logographic writing style of Chinese,
extra logographs are required to represent the additional phonemes.
This is somewhat visible in phonetic languages due to the advent of spelling.
For instance spoken French deviates highly from the written form,
because they use their words like logograms. 

for instance what was once j'aime  is now simply jem  
but the writing system hasn't updated.
Yes French has become more synthetic,
due to the erosion of sound. 

But as the example with Chinese while in short term erosion may lead to faster speech.
In the long term it leads to longer pieces of writing. 
So hopefully with stuff like espeak, or computers reminding of pronunciation,
it would be possible for people to reacquire eroded phonemes,
rather than agglutinizing words to fight the erosion.

> This shows how important the clarity of pronunciation can be to the
> usefulness of a language. ( Back to my laws of avoidance! )
> Leo

Yes, clarity is good.
in Mkaw the base (4bit) vocab can be whispered with clarity.
using the 12 most common consonants, and 3 most common vowels.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: International Auxiliary Languages [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Logan Streondj
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 6:58 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Analytical languages
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:36:37 -0700
> Leo Moser <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Leo remarks:
> > I guess I can agree, in a general way, with much of what you say. 
> > 
> > Otto Jespersen believed that languages have improved over time, and
> typically by becoming more analytical.
> > 
> It's part of the great cycle of languages. 
> Language initially started out as isolating analytic "rock hit. rock kill.
> run! hide!" kinda stuff.
> only through metaphors did grammar words emerge, and then they eroded into
> affixes.
> erosion continues and the affix gets lost, and so another word becomes a
> dead metaphor grammar word.
> thus continuing the cycle.
> Anyways so analytical languages are how we began, and it seems that the main
> world langs Chinese and English approach it again.
> > 
> > I prefer systems that are quite regular, rather analytical, but which can
> use bits of the conjugational / synthetic / agglutinative / compounding
> formats that are so widely used. 
> >
> compounding is fully a part of analytical languages.
> so you can have a synthetic, fusional, agglutinative analytical language.
> analytical simply means the grammar words are kept seperate from the roots.
> for instance mkaw has compound words which are agglutinative seperating
> roots with -h-, makhkwaw word-language it also has fusional new roots, which
> are made from a combination of other roots  mak+kwaw=mkaw . 
> > 
> > Analytical texts can also be made longer. A plural is Spanish simply adds
> an -s, in Esperanto a -j. 
> sure it's a trade off.  cwa (sound) cwamu (sounds). 
> > 
> > In an analytical language it must be a syllable, and following a space,
> like _men_ , or _plu_ , etc.
> er just so you know spaces are optional in Mkaw. due to inheriting Lojban
> style roots and grammar words.
> this would be the case in fluent speech of course, people don't typically
> pause between words. 
> > 
> > I do not agree with all of the following, but it is worth looking at:
> >
> it's easier to understand for me,
> though the dashes aren't pronounceable, is why mkaw uses h's for compounds. 
> -- 
> Logan Streondj <[log in to unmask]>

Logan Streondj <[log in to unmask]>