The most common words in any language are likely to have a range
of meanings rather than a singe one.  The Thesaurus lists a bunch
of the most common cross-linguistic polysemies (multi-meanings).

Would you suggest any change in method with an a priori conlang?

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:17 PM, William Wright <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> You might want to consider generating vocabulary using a computer program
> if you're having trouble coming up with phonological forms for words on
> your own (there have been several written by other conlangers, which are
> freely available on the internet). The up side of that is that the
> generated vocabulary will be truly random, without any unconscious
> influences from natural languages that you might introduce if you generate
> the words by hand.
> I've looked through a couple and the problem is that none that I've found
> have very good mechanisms for incorporating frequency or phonotactics. For
> example of the latter, one of my languages has five phoneme categories:
> plosives, fricatives, nasals, approximants, and vowels; phonotactically,
> the only restrictions are that plosive-fricative clusters must be
> homogenously voiced, plosive-nasal clusters must be heterogenously placed,
> and the sonority heirarchy may not be broken (with the heirarchy being,
> from least to most, plosive, fricative, nasal, approximant, vowel). How
> might I go about doing that with one of the existing generators? In the way
> of the former, I have, for most of my languages, relative frequencies for
> each phoneme; how might I incorporate that?
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Guilherme Santos <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>> If i'm not mistaken, Hindustani and closely related IE languages
>> (Indo-Aryan) do have V+V compounds:
>> Wikipedia has examples: nikal gayā (निकल गया, نِکَل گَیا, lit. "exit
>> went")
>> means 'went out'.
>> 2015-11-09 14:29 GMT-02:00 David McCann <[log in to unmask]>:
>> > On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 08:43:57 -0600
>> > Wm Annis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Finally, many words in a language are going to be related to other
>> > > words through derivational processes of various sorts.
>> >
>> > This can be interesting in the way that different languages operate.
>> > In English, we have derivatives (read-er) and compounds (tea-pot).
>> > Other languages can vary considerably. Chinese has masses of compounds
>> > but hardly any derivatives, while I'm not sure if the Arabic and Eskimo
>> > languages actually have any compounds, although they have many
>> > derivatives. English, like most (all?) Indo-European languages, cannot
>> > make a compound of two verbs, so we need a word like "bring" where
>> > another language would have a compound like "take-come".
>> >
> --
> Sincerely,
>          William S. Wright

         William S. Wright