Derivation

This is where the work of building the language gets done.

Re: Derivation

Postby Dedalvs » Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:04 pm

Is there a way we can make it so that anyone can edit the first post in this thread? It'd be nice if we can just have a list anyone can edit so we get a collection of all the derivational processes floating around.
Dedalvs
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:31 pm
Location: Orange County

Re: Derivation

Postby Miatato » Mon Apr 05, 2010 1:00 pm

I am not sure how to allow people to edit other people's posts without giving them moderator privileges, but I will see what I can do. (I might make a few more people moderators anyway, since most people thus far seem like they are pretty level-headed and not likely to go around maliciously editing/deleting posts.)
Miatato
Site Admin
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:00 pm

Re: Derivation

Postby kadani » Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:48 pm

About go-... The way I thought of it was that it means something like 'symbol of' or 'representing'... and probably that it is no longer productive.
Kaju'il vaixunus'tan viskoreja! Ines'il viskoreja!
Fight linguistic extinction! Invent a language!
Rejistanian word of the day
kadani
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:45 am

Re: Derivation

Postby PeteBleackley » Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:58 am

Some of my early examples had a process
From X derive "product of X" by inserting /i/ after second mora. eg zavusa "bee" => zavuisa "honey"

Where this would create a three-vowel sequence there would have to be allomorphs
PeteBleackley
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:09 am

Re: Derivation

Postby Dedalvs » Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:59 am

kadani wrote:About go-... The way I thought of it was that it means something like 'symbol of' or 'representing'... and probably that it is no longer productive.


Huh. In that case, should we list it here? My intention was just to list productive derivational processes. Not that we can't have fossilized derivational processes, but it seems like if they're no longer productive, then we shouldn't use them productively (and that, perhaps, maybe the one who creates the non-productive process should be the only one able to use it...?).
Dedalvs
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:31 pm
Location: Orange County

Re: Derivation

Postby Matthew Turnbull » Fri Apr 09, 2010 9:06 am

that seems like a good idea, it'll limit the number of roots using it and let the person who decided it should exists decide how far the root has diverged from it's former meaning.
ave matyu at vijeréiisoblarre ayna
saluton mi nomas mateo kaj lingvokreas mi
je me nomme Matthew Turnbull et je fais la glossopoésie
Matthew Turnbull
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:16 pm

Re: Derivation

Postby kadani » Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:18 pm

Dedalvs wrote:
kadani wrote:About go-... The way I thought of it was that it means something like 'symbol of' or 'representing'... and probably that it is no longer productive.


Huh. In that case, should we list it here? My intention was just to list productive derivational processes. Not that we can't have fossilized derivational processes, but it seems like if they're no longer productive, then we shouldn't use them productively (and that, perhaps, maybe the one who creates the non-productive process should be the only one able to use it...?).

Let me reformulate it: If you decided that it is no longer productive, I am fine with it, because even though I used it, it feels kinda... odd...

(I did not invent go- just stole it from gosama(sp?))
Kaju'il vaixunus'tan viskoreja! Ines'il viskoreja!
Fight linguistic extinction! Invent a language!
Rejistanian word of the day
kadani
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:45 am

Re: Derivation

Postby Dedalvs » Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:05 pm

kadani wrote:
Dedalvs wrote:
kadani wrote:About go-... The way I thought of it was that it means something like 'symbol of' or 'representing'... and probably that it is no longer productive.


Huh. In that case, should we list it here? My intention was just to list productive derivational processes. Not that we can't have fossilized derivational processes, but it seems like if they're no longer productive, then we shouldn't use them productively (and that, perhaps, maybe the one who creates the non-productive process should be the only one able to use it...?).

Let me reformulate it: If you decided that it is no longer productive, I am fine with it, because even though I used it, it feels kinda... odd...

(I did not invent go- just stole it from gosama(sp?))


Oh, I thought you decided it was no longer productive! In that case, I'm going to go add it the main post.
Dedalvs
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:31 pm
Location: Orange County

Re: Derivation

Postby alavda-isere » Sat Apr 10, 2010 11:55 am

I just created a suffix in the word creation thread; -no attaches to nouns to create adjectives.
alavda-isere
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:26 am
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Re: Derivation

Postby alexfink » Thu Apr 15, 2010 1:10 am

If we cut out Pete's case system as cases [or even if not], we could keep them around for more derivational operators. For example, we might try to use the genitive in ways which come out close to "adjectiviser" (which is a dangerous word to use -- have we decided "adjective" is even a word class?):
podji 'gold' (substance) > piodji 'made of gold'? (and then I guess audja 'gold-coloured'?)
txifom 'hair' > txixifom (using kadani's hiatus resolution) 'hair-covered'?
kami 'moon' > kiami 'nocturnal'? 'monthly'?
etc.

... Ooh, and here's an idea. It would be quite cool if gosana 'crown' came first, and the old language had a form giosana 'crowned' which got substantivised to 'king', reflected as josana in the modern language by a very natural palatalisation process!
Could xami be 'month'?

EDIT: or txami. In the history that's fleshing itself out in my mind faster'n I can keep up with, initial dj was lenited to j without a corresponding tx > x -- we seem to have tx-initial words but no dj-initial right now. Not surprising in the least, there're several natlang examples of voiced affricates leniting but not voiceless. And either this old palatalisation affected only [kg]iV and not all [kg]i, or else there was another source of ki, since there's lots of ki- initial words. (Old Kenakoliku had a /k_w/ or a /q/ or some such?)
alexfink
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Language Factory

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron