Posted by Kazper at 4:15pm Jan 6 '09That that is logical isn't necessarily symmetrical. Logical products may be very lopsided.
A benefit of the braille system over embossing of a language's letters is that braille can be adapted to different languages by associating the braille codes with different letters. With braille you don't need a particular embosser to transcribe a particular language, you jus' need a braille writer.
If a language has 10 consonants that are represented by 10 distinct graphemes and 10 vowels that are represented by 10 diacritic positions relative to a C and if a computer needs a code for each of the 10 positions with each C then 110 codes are needed to represent the Cs and the Vs. If the vowels are represented by 10 distinct graphemes then only 20 codes are needed.
If you buy one item at a time you may buy more expensive items because 1.00 more for one single item don't seem like much when it isn't added to all the extra money of all the other items you may have paid more for if you bought more than one at a time.
I try not to watch movies that are or probably are illegally on the internet but it's really hard to do especially if the movie's an Alyssa Milano movie. If it weren't for YouTube and Alyssa lovers (presumably) who uploaded the jam-packed-full-of-Alyssa movie: "Below Utopia"... I wouldn't have gotten to see a jam-packed-full-of-Alyssa movie. She so fine. I'm reminded of the "Embrace of the Vampire" movie... :D YouTube, continue to be good to me! I already know that you have a few scenes -_^- but I wanna see the whole thing!
Morphemes, words and compounds all represent completed phrases (they just do so in different ways), so that can't be the definition of morpheme. I should use "morpheme" how they use it (as the smallest meaningful unit) and create a new term for the current "morpheme". It may still fit the criteria for a morpheme but it's different from affixes which too fit the criteria for morphemes. I think they make these distinctions with the terms: "free morpheme" and "bound morpheme". The problem with these terms though is that verbs and prepositions, which don't refer to completed phrases, can fit the criteria of morpheme. Complete compressed sentences can also be morphemes. Both of these free ones.
Ha! I'll just define morpheme, word and compound how or pretty much how I think they already are and if they represent completed phrases or sentences or [whatever]... then that's what they represent. Particular terms for, for example, words that represent completed sentences could be created if needed or desired.
Morpheme: smallest, indivisible unit of meaning (free and bound).
Word: unit of meaning made out of at least one bound morpheme (affix) and a free morpheme xor compound. (A word can be a rustem as well.)
Compound: unit of meaning made out of two or more free morphemes xor two or more words xor one or more free morphemes and one or more words. A compound is a simple (or possibly can also be a complex) phrase that is only part of the meaning it represents. (Compounds can also be units of meaning within compounds.)
If the meaning of the inflectional word can be categorized as a noun, adjective or adverb then it's a declensional word and the affixes are declensions.
If the meaning of the inflectional word can be categorized as a selbri then it's a conjugational word and the affixes are conjugations.
Perhaps though these distinctions won't really be made. They definitely wont be indicated morphologically.
Terms like: "x1 in direction of x2" are place structure terms. The variables don't take rustem.
"w" and "y" seem only to be formed by two vowels but the combination doesn't merge into the new sound. Example: "ue" makes just a "w" sound not including the "e". This is unlike... dipthongs that represent the vowel combination. I think then that there's no use in creating the "w" and "y" graphemes since you're just trading one grapheme for another. Example: "buecem - bwecem".
Buacem - bwacem, buocem - bwocem.
What the sound represented by its own grapheme does allow though is this, for example: bwcem (b-w-cem). If you only got this sound with a "u" followed by another vowel then you couldn't have that term.
"w" and "y" only represent the first part of the sound of the combinations of "u" followed by a vowel and of "i" followed by a vowel.
"i" (as in Mike) represents the whole part of the sound of the combination of "a" (as in father) followed by "e" (as in Pete).
If, for me, prefixes create "derivational words" and suffixes create "underivational words" then a "prefixal word" is a "derivationnal word" and a "suffixal word" is an "underivational word". An "affixal word" would be created from both prefixes and suffixes. So I don't think I need the terms: derivational, underivational, declension/al, conjugation/al and inflection/al...
Part of the definition of a "affixal words" could be that... they're derived meanings from smaller meanings. The more particular meaning of "prefixal words" and "suffixal words" can be given too, so there's no need for the terms "derivational" and "underivational".
"It is inflected for number." - "It is affixed for number."
Inflection: the event or process where one uses inflections could be Affixation: the event or process where one uses affixes.
The meaning of a prefixal word is quite different from the meaning of the rustem in it.
The meaning of a suffixal word is not quite as different from the meaning of the rustem in it.
The meaning of an affixal (maybe it should be "presufixal") word is not quite as different from the meaning of the rustem in it.
The meaning of affixal words (prefixal or suffixal words) represent meanings different from the meanings of the rustems in them.
More than one arguement can be moved around at a time. Ex.: S, PS, IO, CS1, O. The S and IO have to be indicated though. The CS indicates itself and the O should be indicated just by having the S and IO indicated.
Perhaps, the thematic roles of uncore arguements are not determined by the primary selbri but still determined by their selbri...
In "x1 in x2" and "x1 eat x2 in x3" both "x2" in the former and "x3" in the latter are locations.
In "x1 use x2" and "x1 break x2 use x3" both "x2" in the former and "x3" in the latter are instruments.
If I'm right the reality of "x1 give x2 to (vo) x3" is that "x2 to (vo) x3". In this case the coselbri and arguement are being conveyed to help define "give". But "give" is not "vo x3" nor is "x1".
Perhaps even when a coselbri and any arguements are not functioning as semantic arguements... that's kinda how they should still be regarded... to explain how they create a new arguement structure of essentially a new selbri... argh! ...Ah! Maybe we can think of them, not as definers, but as redefiners...
So: coselbri and any arguements with one of the core arguements of the primary selbri as their subject are secondary events that occur simultaneously with the primary event and are conveyed to help define or redefine the primary selbri. The lack of conjunction used is a method to distinguish selbri from coselbri or perhaps it's just a brevity scheme, especially possible, I think, if each selbri and coselbri are indicated in some other way.
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
A benefit of the braille system over embossing of a language's letters is that braille can be adapted to different languages by associating the braille codes with different letters. With braille you don't need a particular embosser to transcribe a particular language, you jus' need a braille writer.
If a language has 10 consonants that are represented by 10 distinct graphemes and 10 vowels that are represented by 10 diacritic positions relative to a C and if a computer needs a code for each of the 10 positions with each C then 110 codes are needed to represent the Cs and the Vs. If the vowels are represented by 10 distinct graphemes then only 20 codes are needed.
If you buy one item at a time you may buy more expensive items because 1.00 more for one single item don't seem like much when it isn't added to all the extra money of all the other items you may have paid more for if you bought more than one at a time.
I try not to watch movies that are or probably are illegally on the internet but it's really hard to do especially if the movie's an Alyssa Milano movie. If it weren't for YouTube and Alyssa lovers (presumably) who uploaded the jam-packed-full-of-Alyssa movie: "Below Utopia"... I wouldn't have gotten to see a jam-packed-full-of-Alyssa movie. She so fine. I'm reminded of the "Embrace of the Vampire" movie... :D YouTube, continue to be good to me! I already know that you have a few scenes -_^- but I wanna see the whole thing!
Morphemes, words and compounds all represent completed phrases (they just do so in different ways), so that can't be the definition of morpheme. I should use "morpheme" how they use it (as the smallest meaningful unit) and create a new term for the current "morpheme". It may still fit the criteria for a morpheme but it's different from affixes which too fit the criteria for morphemes. I think they make these distinctions with the terms: "free morpheme" and "bound morpheme". The problem with these terms though is that verbs and prepositions, which don't refer to completed phrases, can fit the criteria of morpheme. Complete compressed sentences can also be morphemes. Both of these free ones.
Ha! I'll just define morpheme, word and compound how or pretty much how I think they already are and if they represent completed phrases or sentences or [whatever]... then that's what they represent. Particular terms for, for example, words that represent completed sentences could be created if needed or desired.
Morpheme: smallest, indivisible unit of meaning (free and bound).
Word: unit of meaning made out of at least one bound morpheme (affix) and a free morpheme xor compound. (A word can be a rustem as well.)
Compound: unit of meaning made out of two or more free morphemes xor two or more words xor one or more free morphemes and one or more words. A compound is a simple (or possibly can also be a complex) phrase that is only part of the meaning it represents. (Compounds can also be units of meaning within compounds.)
If the meaning of the inflectional word can be categorized as a noun, adjective or adverb then it's a declensional word and the affixes are declensions.
If the meaning of the inflectional word can be categorized as a selbri then it's a conjugational word and the affixes are conjugations.
Perhaps though these distinctions won't really be made. They definitely wont be indicated morphologically.
Terms like: "x1 in direction of x2" are place structure terms. The variables don't take rustem.
"w" and "y" seem only to be formed by two vowels but the combination doesn't merge into the new sound. Example: "ue" makes just a "w" sound not including the "e". This is unlike... dipthongs that represent the vowel combination. I think then that there's no use in creating the "w" and "y" graphemes since you're just trading one grapheme for another. Example: "buecem - bwecem".
Buacem - bwacem, buocem - bwocem.
What the sound represented by its own grapheme does allow though is this, for example: bwcem (b-w-cem). If you only got this sound with a "u" followed by another vowel then you couldn't have that term.
"w" and "y" only represent the first part of the sound of the combinations of "u" followed by a vowel and of "i" followed by a vowel.
"i" (as in Mike) represents the whole part of the sound of the combination of "a" (as in father) followed by "e" (as in Pete).
If, for me, prefixes create "derivational words" and suffixes create "underivational words" then a "prefixal word" is a "derivationnal word" and a "suffixal word" is an "underivational word". An "affixal word" would be created from both prefixes and suffixes. So I don't think I need the terms: derivational, underivational, declension/al, conjugation/al and inflection/al...
Part of the definition of a "affixal words" could be that... they're derived meanings from smaller meanings. The more particular meaning of "prefixal words" and "suffixal words" can be given too, so there's no need for the terms "derivational" and "underivational".
"It is inflected for number." - "It is affixed for number."
Inflection: the event or process where one uses inflections could be Affixation: the event or process where one uses affixes.
The meaning of a prefixal word is quite different from the meaning of the rustem in it.
The meaning of a suffixal word is not quite as different from the meaning of the rustem in it.
The meaning of an affixal (maybe it should be "presufixal") word is not quite as different from the meaning of the rustem in it.
The meaning of affixal words (prefixal or suffixal words) represent meanings different from the meanings of the rustems in them.
More than one arguement can be moved around at a time. Ex.: S, PS, IO, CS1, O. The S and IO have to be indicated though. The CS indicates itself and the O should be indicated just by having the S and IO indicated.
Perhaps, the thematic roles of uncore arguements are not determined by the primary selbri but still determined by their selbri...
In "x1 in x2" and "x1 eat x2 in x3" both "x2" in the former and "x3" in the latter are locations.
In "x1 use x2" and "x1 break x2 use x3" both "x2" in the former and "x3" in the latter are instruments.
If I'm right the reality of "x1 give x2 to (vo) x3" is that "x2 to (vo) x3". In this case the coselbri and arguement are being conveyed to help define "give". But "give" is not "vo x3" nor is "x1".
Perhaps even when a coselbri and any arguements are not functioning as semantic arguements... that's kinda how they should still be regarded... to explain how they create a new arguement structure of essentially a new selbri... argh! ...Ah! Maybe we can think of them, not as definers, but as redefiners...
So: coselbri and any arguements with one of the core arguements of the primary selbri as their subject are secondary events that occur simultaneously with the primary event and are conveyed to help define or redefine the primary selbri. The lack of conjunction used is a method to distinguish selbri from coselbri or perhaps it's just a brevity scheme, especially possible, I think, if each selbri and coselbri are indicated in some other way.
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~