Posted by Kazper at 11:15am Feb 20 '09The meaning that is conveyed by a prefixal word is quite different from the meaning represented by the rustem/nycj in it.
The meaning that is conveyed by a suffixal word isnot quite as different from the meaning represented by the rustem/nycj in it.
Both though, I think, may only be conveying complete parts of phrases and not also at times complete whole phrases. So: the meanings (the complete whole phrases) that they represent are both quite different from the meanings represented by the rustems/nycj[[s]] in them.
If the female counterpart of animalx is radically different in appearance and some other characteristics then the word: animalx-female would definitely only be conveying a complete part of phrase since there would be alot more to the definition of this word.
I may make all derivational affixes prefixes because it may not always be true that suffixes compound after prefixes (the meaning represented by a suffixal word can conceivably be the rustem/nycj of a prefixal word).
A benefit though of having inflectional affixes again and losing clitics is that more brevity should be had with inflectional suffixes then with clitics, especially when the amount of them goes up: 3 clitics would require a relative clause opener, two conjunctions and a relative clause closer. Whereas the same amount of inflectional suffixes would only require the suffix seperater. Not to mention the form of clitics are like morphemes so: would have to be at least two graphemes long and more likely they would be three long. Inflectional suffixes would be at the most three graphemes long and more likely only two long.
Inflectional suffixes do not compound. Each one would attach to the rustem/nycj.
... There may never be that many clitics all at once though. And the benefits of having clitics is that words are easier to describe and the CV are freed up for [[member classifier]] terms...
... Argh! Given my phraseal grammar (needing to always use relative clause openers and closers and if necessary conjunctions) clitics are gonna be too annoying to use. So no clitics!
An affix is an [[attach]], indivisible term that's made out of a combination of phonemes and graphemes and that represents an incomplete part of a [[constant]] phrase xor an incomplete whole [[variable]] phrase. It conveysnot part of the meaning it represents.
A prefix is an [[attach]], indivisible term that's made out of a combination of unvoiced, aspirated consonants and vowels (C'V, C'VV, C'C'V) and that represents an incomplete part of a [[constant]] phrase. It conveysnot part of the meaning it represents.
A suffix is an [[attach]], indivisible term that's made out of a combination of voiced, unaspirated consonants and vowels (CV, CVV, CCV) and that represents an incomplete whole [[variable]] phrase. It conveysnot part of the meaninng it represents.
A morpheme is a free, indivisible term that's made out of a combination of phonemes and graphemes (all morphemes start with an unvoiced, aspirated consonant and end with a voiced, unaspirated consonant. All intermediate consonants are unvoiced, aspirated consonants). It represents a complete, whole [[constant]] phrase xor a complete sentence xor some complete sentences xor an incomplete sentence. It conveysnot part of the meaning it represents.
A word is a free, divisible term that's made out of one affix xor a combination of affixes and one morpheme xor one compound xor one [[classifier compound]] xor one [[member classifier]]. It represents a complete, whole, [[constant]] phrase or a complete, whole, [[variable]] phrase. It conveys a complete part of a [[constant]] phrase or a complete whole [[variable]] phrase.
A prefixal word is a free, divisible term that's made out one prefix xor more than one prefix and one morpheme xor one compound xor one [[classifier compound]] xor one [[member classifier]]. It represents a complete, whole, [[constant]] phrase. It conveys a complete part of a [[constant]] phrase.
A suffixal word is a free, divisible term that's made out one suffix xor more than one suffix and one morpheme xor one compound xor one [[classifier compound]] xor one [[member classifier]]. It represents a complete, whole, [[variable]] phrase. It conveys a complete, whole, [[variable]] phrase.
A compound is a free, divisible term that's made out of two morphemes xor two words xor two [[classifier compounds]] xor two [[member classifiers]] xor one morpheme and one word, xor one morpheme and one [[classifier compound]] xor one morpheme and one [[member classifier]], xor one word and one [[classifier compound]] xor one word and one [[member classifier]] xor one [[classifier compound]] and one [[member classifier]]. It represents a complete, whole, [[constant]] phrase. It conveys a complete part of a [[constant]] phrase.
A [[classifier compound]] is a free, divisible term that's made out of two morphemes xor two words xor two compounds xor [[ two [[member classifiers]] ]] xor one morpheme and one word, xor one morpheme and one compound, xor one morpheme and one [[member classifier]], xor one word and one compound, xor one word and one [[member classifier]], xor one compound and one [[member classifier]]. It represents a complete, whole [[incidental]] phrase. It conveys a complete part of an [[incidental]] phrase xor it conveys a complete whole [[incidental]] phrase.
A [[member]] is an [[attach]], indivisible term that's made out of a combination of unvoiced, aspirated consonants and vowels and that represents nothing. It conveys a number as it is equivalent to a [[member]] in a [[member classifier]] that represents a number.
A [[classifier]] is an [[attach]], indivisible term that's made out of a combination of voiced, unaspirated consonants and vowels (CV, CVV, CCV) and that represents a term that represents a category. It conveysnot part of the meaning it represents.
A [[member classifier]] is a free, divisible term that's made out of one [[member]] and one [[classifier]] and that represents a complete, whole, [[constant]] phrase. It conveys part of the meaning that it represents.
A concept that can be represented by a word should be. But if it's long and often used it can be morphemeized.
A non-classificational, a priori language with a fairly large root (morpheme) vocabulary can be learned easier with the use of optional noun classifiers (terms that equal categories). The benefit of arbitrary morphemes and optional noun classifiers is that the description that the morpheme represents can completely change without the morpheme becoming arbitrary (it already is) and misleading. So: the morpheme doesn't have to change to reflect the change in the meaning that it represents. The frequent noun classifiers that were used with the morpheme before the change can just be dropped and new ones can be used.
If I have a compound: "apple-green" and it turns out that the concept that it represents isn't an apple then not only does the meaning change but the term has to change as well. Yet the concept is still the concept even though it was improperly described... An arbritrary morpheme can still represent a concept no matter how often the meaning changes.
A morpheme represents a particular concept, however exactly it may be described.
The problem of compounds is the same problem for words. But since words are different from compounds and compounds are similar to [[classifier compounds]] and can be handled by [[classifier compounds]] I think I can safely get rid of compounds but not words...
In a compound the first term is like the second term (classifier) in a [[classifier compound]] and the second term (though not arbitrary like the first term in a [[classifier compound]]) is like the first term in a [[classifier compound]]. Ex. of compound: fly-green. Ex. of [[classifier compound]]: [arbitrary morpheme]-fly. "green" in the compound is not arbitrary. It was chosen because one thinks it may be distinctive enough. But... I don't think it's THAT helpful. The compound and the [[classifier compound]] both seem about equally helpful. The benefit of the [[classifier compound]] though is that if the concept turns out to not be a fly only the definition has to be changed and the classifier:fly dropped. The arbitrary morpheme remains. Not true of the compound: the definition has to change as well as the entire compound. If another compound is used as the replacement, perhaps "green" will stil be used... but I don't know...
A term is a unit of meaning and so: represents that meaning. A meaning is a description of a concept. If the description of the concept is wrong or not adequate enough... the concept is still the concept and isn't wrong as well. Descriptions are attempts to verbally pindown a concept. But whether or not the description is right, the concept is still the concept. So: with terms, or at least morphemes, the meaning that they represent can completely change without the concept that they represent changing.
Descriptive phrases describe concepts and creative phrases create concepts.
If part or all of a descriptive phrase changes the concept doesnot change and the term can continue to represent it.
If part or all of a creative phrase changes the concept does change and the term can no longer represent it, since it represents the new concept. (... the morpheme can still be used...)
A descriptive concept is a concept that is... ... not a creative concept! :/ Maybe... a concept that is not imagined. One may only have an idea of a concept in their head but they think it is a concept that can be real. They picture it and they try to describe it. This description can change without the concept changing because that concept, even though it's in the head, is... outside of them. They can't just create it. They have to describe it.
The tense of a relative clause that's in a phrase that's in an incomplete sentence equals the tense of the primary sentence. So: whether the relater of the incomplete sentence is primary or secondary the tense of any relative clauses are the same as the tense of the primary sentence. Example: [x1] [tense] in direction that [tensel*qvw] of [x2]
The meaning represented by the terms in a word or [[classifier compound]] are known. So: a suffixal word still represents and conveys a complete whole [[variable]] phrase regardless if its rustem is a prefixal word that represents a complete whole [[constant]] phrase and conveys a complete part of a [[constant]] phrase. Just as a [[classifier compound]] still represents a complete whole [[incidental]] phrase regardless if its first term is a prefixal word. You determine the whole term and then categorize it accordingly.
A word, compound and [[classifier compound]] are made up of only a combination of two terms. The meaning that each term represents is known.
The rustem of a prefixal word with two prefixes is a morpheme and the first prefix on its left. The first rustem is the morpheme.
The rustem of a morphemeal, suffixal word with two suffixes is the morpheme. Suffixes donot compound. Each one attaches to the rustem.
"x3" in "x1 eat x2 in x3" is a different type of relation than "x2" in "x1 in x2" because in the context of the first sentence "in" is a secondary relater. And in the context of the second sentence "in" is a primary relater.
"x3" in "x1 gives x2 in direction of x3" is a different type of relation than "x2" in "x1 run in direction of x2", even though in the context of both sentences "in" in "in direction of" is a secondary relater, because in the context of the first sentence "in" in "in direction of" is a secondary relater of "x2" (a direct object). And in the context of the second sentence "in" in "in direction of" is a secondary relater of "x1" (a subject).
So: "x3" in "x1 eat x2 in x3" is the same type of relation as "x4" in "x1 give x2 to x3 in x4" because in the context of both sentences "in" is a secondary relater of "x1" (a subject).
A primary relation is a relation of a primary relater. There are only two primary relations (subject and direct object) because it doesn't seem to matter what type of primary relater is used.
A secondary relation is a relation of a secondary relater. There are as many secondary relations as there are types of secondary relaters that are secondary relaters of a subject or a direct object. For example: if there's, let's just say, only 10 secondary relaters that can each be secondary relaters of a subject and a direct object then the total amount of secondary relations would be 20.
The first [[member classifier]] ([[MC]]) has a [[classifier]] ([[C]]) that represents a term that represents a category that equals number. The first C' of the C' set and the first V of the V set with this [[C]] represents the number one. The second C' of the C' set and the second V of the V set with this [[C]] represents the number 2. The eighth C' of the C' set and the eighth V of the V set with this [[C]] represents the number 0. Each C'V syllable out to the left from the [[C]] equals an increasing power of 8 position.
pwl*abw = one
fql*abw = two
mil*abw = three
tul*abw = four
cel*abw = five
sal*abw = six
nxl*abw = seven
kyl*abw = zero
pwkyl*abw = 10 in B 8 (8 in B 10)
pwtunxl*abw = 247 in B 8 (167 in B 10)
When a concept that is in a category is to be represented by a [[MC]] the [[M]] of the [[MC]] is to reflect the concept's numerical position in the category. So: if a concept is the 13th (15th in B 8) the [[M]] should be: pwce-. The [[MC]] should be: pwcel*a[ [[C]] ].
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
The meaning that is conveyed by a suffixal word isnot quite as different from the meaning represented by the rustem/nycj in it.
Both though, I think, may only be conveying complete parts of phrases and not also at times complete whole phrases. So: the meanings (the complete whole phrases) that they represent are both quite different from the meanings represented by the rustems/nycj[[s]] in them.
If the female counterpart of animalx is radically different in appearance and some other characteristics then the word: animalx-female would definitely only be conveying a complete part of phrase since there would be alot more to the definition of this word.
I may make all derivational affixes prefixes because it may not always be true that suffixes compound after prefixes (the meaning represented by a suffixal word can conceivably be the rustem/nycj of a prefixal word).
A benefit though of having inflectional affixes again and losing clitics is that more brevity should be had with inflectional suffixes then with clitics, especially when the amount of them goes up: 3 clitics would require a relative clause opener, two conjunctions and a relative clause closer. Whereas the same amount of inflectional suffixes would only require the suffix seperater. Not to mention the form of clitics are like morphemes so: would have to be at least two graphemes long and more likely they would be three long. Inflectional suffixes would be at the most three graphemes long and more likely only two long.
Inflectional suffixes do not compound. Each one would attach to the rustem/nycj.
... There may never be that many clitics all at once though. And the benefits of having clitics is that words are easier to describe and the CV are freed up for [[member classifier]] terms...
... Argh! Given my phraseal grammar (needing to always use relative clause openers and closers and if necessary conjunctions) clitics are gonna be too annoying to use. So no clitics!
An affix is an [[attach]], indivisible term that's made out of a combination of phonemes and graphemes and that represents an incomplete part of a [[constant]] phrase xor an incomplete whole [[variable]] phrase. It conveysnot part of the meaning it represents.
A prefix is an [[attach]], indivisible term that's made out of a combination of unvoiced, aspirated consonants and vowels (C'V, C'VV, C'C'V) and that represents an incomplete part of a [[constant]] phrase. It conveysnot part of the meaning it represents.
A suffix is an [[attach]], indivisible term that's made out of a combination of voiced, unaspirated consonants and vowels (CV, CVV, CCV) and that represents an incomplete whole [[variable]] phrase. It conveysnot part of the meaninng it represents.
A morpheme is a free, indivisible term that's made out of a combination of phonemes and graphemes (all morphemes start with an unvoiced, aspirated consonant and end with a voiced, unaspirated consonant. All intermediate consonants are unvoiced, aspirated consonants). It represents a complete, whole [[constant]] phrase xor a complete sentence xor some complete sentences xor an incomplete sentence. It conveysnot part of the meaning it represents.
A word is a free, divisible term that's made out of one affix xor a combination of affixes and one morpheme xor one compound xor one [[classifier compound]] xor one [[member classifier]]. It represents a complete, whole, [[constant]] phrase or a complete, whole, [[variable]] phrase. It conveys a complete part of a [[constant]] phrase or a complete whole [[variable]] phrase.
A prefixal word is a free, divisible term that's made out one prefix xor more than one prefix and one morpheme xor one compound xor one [[classifier compound]] xor one [[member classifier]]. It represents a complete, whole, [[constant]] phrase. It conveys a complete part of a [[constant]] phrase.
A suffixal word is a free, divisible term that's made out one suffix xor more than one suffix and one morpheme xor one compound xor one [[classifier compound]] xor one [[member classifier]]. It represents a complete, whole, [[variable]] phrase. It conveys a complete, whole, [[variable]] phrase.
A compound is a free, divisible term that's made out of two morphemes xor two words xor two [[classifier compounds]] xor two [[member classifiers]] xor one morpheme and one word, xor one morpheme and one [[classifier compound]] xor one morpheme and one [[member classifier]], xor one word and one [[classifier compound]] xor one word and one [[member classifier]] xor one [[classifier compound]] and one [[member classifier]]. It represents a complete, whole, [[constant]] phrase. It conveys a complete part of a [[constant]] phrase.
A [[classifier compound]] is a free, divisible term that's made out of two morphemes xor two words xor two compounds xor [[ two [[member classifiers]] ]] xor one morpheme and one word, xor one morpheme and one compound, xor one morpheme and one [[member classifier]], xor one word and one compound, xor one word and one [[member classifier]], xor one compound and one [[member classifier]]. It represents a complete, whole [[incidental]] phrase. It conveys a complete part of an [[incidental]] phrase xor it conveys a complete whole [[incidental]] phrase.
A [[member]] is an [[attach]], indivisible term that's made out of a combination of unvoiced, aspirated consonants and vowels and that represents nothing. It conveys a number as it is equivalent to a [[member]] in a [[member classifier]] that represents a number.
A [[classifier]] is an [[attach]], indivisible term that's made out of a combination of voiced, unaspirated consonants and vowels (CV, CVV, CCV) and that represents a term that represents a category. It conveysnot part of the meaning it represents.
A [[member classifier]] is a free, divisible term that's made out of one [[member]] and one [[classifier]] and that represents a complete, whole, [[constant]] phrase. It conveys part of the meaning that it represents.
A concept that can be represented by a word should be. But if it's long and often used it can be morphemeized.
A non-classificational, a priori language with a fairly large root (morpheme) vocabulary can be learned easier with the use of optional noun classifiers (terms that equal categories). The benefit of arbitrary morphemes and optional noun classifiers is that the description that the morpheme represents can completely change without the morpheme becoming arbitrary (it already is) and misleading. So: the morpheme doesn't have to change to reflect the change in the meaning that it represents. The frequent noun classifiers that were used with the morpheme before the change can just be dropped and new ones can be used.
If I have a compound: "apple-green" and it turns out that the concept that it represents isn't an apple then not only does the meaning change but the term has to change as well. Yet the concept is still the concept even though it was improperly described... An arbritrary morpheme can still represent a concept no matter how often the meaning changes.
A morpheme represents a particular concept, however exactly it may be described.
The problem of compounds is the same problem for words. But since words are different from compounds and compounds are similar to [[classifier compounds]] and can be handled by [[classifier compounds]] I think I can safely get rid of compounds but not words...
In a compound the first term is like the second term (classifier) in a [[classifier compound]] and the second term (though not arbitrary like the first term in a [[classifier compound]]) is like the first term in a [[classifier compound]]. Ex. of compound: fly-green. Ex. of [[classifier compound]]: [arbitrary morpheme]-fly. "green" in the compound is not arbitrary. It was chosen because one thinks it may be distinctive enough. But... I don't think it's THAT helpful. The compound and the [[classifier compound]] both seem about equally helpful. The benefit of the [[classifier compound]] though is that if the concept turns out to not be a fly only the definition has to be changed and the classifier:fly dropped. The arbitrary morpheme remains. Not true of the compound: the definition has to change as well as the entire compound. If another compound is used as the replacement, perhaps "green" will stil be used... but I don't know...
A term is a unit of meaning and so: represents that meaning. A meaning is a description of a concept. If the description of the concept is wrong or not adequate enough... the concept is still the concept and isn't wrong as well. Descriptions are attempts to verbally pindown a concept. But whether or not the description is right, the concept is still the concept. So: with terms, or at least morphemes, the meaning that they represent can completely change without the concept that they represent changing.
Descriptive phrases describe concepts and creative phrases create concepts.
If part or all of a descriptive phrase changes the concept doesnot change and the term can continue to represent it.
If part or all of a creative phrase changes the concept does change and the term can no longer represent it, since it represents the new concept. (... the morpheme can still be used...)
A descriptive concept is a concept that is... ... not a creative concept! :/ Maybe... a concept that is not imagined. One may only have an idea of a concept in their head but they think it is a concept that can be real. They picture it and they try to describe it. This description can change without the concept changing because that concept, even though it's in the head, is... outside of them. They can't just create it. They have to describe it.
The tense of a relative clause that's in a phrase that's in an incomplete sentence equals the tense of the primary sentence. So: whether the relater of the incomplete sentence is primary or secondary the tense of any relative clauses are the same as the tense of the primary sentence. Example: [x1] [tense] in direction that [tensel*qvw] of [x2]
The meaning represented by the terms in a word or [[classifier compound]] are known. So: a suffixal word still represents and conveys a complete whole [[variable]] phrase regardless if its rustem is a prefixal word that represents a complete whole [[constant]] phrase and conveys a complete part of a [[constant]] phrase. Just as a [[classifier compound]] still represents a complete whole [[incidental]] phrase regardless if its first term is a prefixal word. You determine the whole term and then categorize it accordingly.
A word, compound and [[classifier compound]] are made up of only a combination of two terms. The meaning that each term represents is known.
The rustem of a prefixal word with two prefixes is a morpheme and the first prefix on its left. The first rustem is the morpheme.
The rustem of a morphemeal, suffixal word with two suffixes is the morpheme. Suffixes donot compound. Each one attaches to the rustem.
"x3" in "x1 eat x2 in x3" is a different type of relation than "x2" in "x1 in x2" because in the context of the first sentence "in" is a secondary relater. And in the context of the second sentence "in" is a primary relater.
"x3" in "x1 gives x2 in direction of x3" is a different type of relation than "x2" in "x1 run in direction of x2", even though in the context of both sentences "in" in "in direction of" is a secondary relater, because in the context of the first sentence "in" in "in direction of" is a secondary relater of "x2" (a direct object). And in the context of the second sentence "in" in "in direction of" is a secondary relater of "x1" (a subject).
So: "x3" in "x1 eat x2 in x3" is the same type of relation as "x4" in "x1 give x2 to x3 in x4" because in the context of both sentences "in" is a secondary relater of "x1" (a subject).
A primary relation is a relation of a primary relater. There are only two primary relations (subject and direct object) because it doesn't seem to matter what type of primary relater is used.
A secondary relation is a relation of a secondary relater. There are as many secondary relations as there are types of secondary relaters that are secondary relaters of a subject or a direct object. For example: if there's, let's just say, only 10 secondary relaters that can each be secondary relaters of a subject and a direct object then the total amount of secondary relations would be 20.
The first [[member classifier]] ([[MC]]) has a [[classifier]] ([[C]]) that represents a term that represents a category that equals number. The first C' of the C' set and the first V of the V set with this [[C]] represents the number one. The second C' of the C' set and the second V of the V set with this [[C]] represents the number 2. The eighth C' of the C' set and the eighth V of the V set with this [[C]] represents the number 0. Each C'V syllable out to the left from the [[C]] equals an increasing power of 8 position.
pwl*abw = one
fql*abw = two
mil*abw = three
tul*abw = four
cel*abw = five
sal*abw = six
nxl*abw = seven
kyl*abw = zero
pwkyl*abw = 10 in B 8 (8 in B 10)
pwtunxl*abw = 247 in B 8 (167 in B 10)
When a concept that is in a category is to be represented by a [[MC]] the [[M]] of the [[MC]] is to reflect the concept's numerical position in the category. So: if a concept is the 13th (15th in B 8) the [[M]] should be: pwce-. The [[MC]] should be: pwcel*a[ [[C]] ].
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
Ruminations. - Kazper