|
Vreleksá The Alurhsa Word for Constructed: Creativity in both scripts and languages
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
yssida
Joined: 16 Sep 2007 Posts: 253 Location: sa jaan lang
|
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Synthetic is adding morphemes together. This is a lot like Esperanto.
Example:
homojn - people/men (accusative)
hom - root for a person
o- denotes a noun
j- denotes a plural
n-accusative
Basically, you glue them together. In a fusional language, those three endings would probably be handled by just one ending. _________________ kasabot ka ani? aw di tingali ka bisaya mao na
my freewebs site |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eldin raigmore Admin
Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1621 Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not that that's wrong; but it's still possible to be misled.
There are two axes along which languages are typologized according to their morphological habits.
One is "synthetic" vs "isolating"; the other is "agglutinating" vs "fusional".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count the average number of morphemes per word. If all words are monomorphemic the language is purely isolating. In general if this average is less than two you can call the language "isolating".
If the average number of morphemes per word is more than four the language is very, very synthetic, and will probably qualify as "polysynthetic".
In between -- more than two but less than four -- you'd still say the language is "synthetic", but probably not "polysynthetic".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "agglutinating" vs "fusional" dimension doesn't apply to purely isolating languages; but it does apply to languages that are even a little bit synthesizing.
Now, count the average number of meanings per morpheme.
If each morpheme has just one meaning -- for instance, nominative, or definite, or masculine, or singular, or third-person -- or progressive, or indicative, or affirmative, or present, or active -- the language is "agglutinating".
If a single morpheme has more than one meaning -- for instance, nominative definite masculine, or masculine singular third-person, or progressive indicative affirmative, or affirmative present active -- the language is "fusional".
So if the average number of meanings per morpheme is, say, less than 1.5, you would call the language "agglutinating"; if it's more than 1.5, you would call the language "fusional".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a 19th-century typology; beginning about in the 1950s or 1960s people began to typologize more on the basis of syntax than of morphology. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
langover94
Joined: 21 Aug 2007 Posts: 509 Location: USA
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
omg thank you!!!!
my conlang Danslag would then probably be isolating and agglutinating.
one question: does gender count as a morpheme?
another question: what would english be considered? or are the categories only for conlangs? _________________ Join us at: The Renewed Spirits Forum!
Please join for good discussion. (We need members!) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yssida
Joined: 16 Sep 2007 Posts: 253 Location: sa jaan lang
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think English might be nearer to the isolating end but still a bit fusional. That's just me, though. _________________ kasabot ka ani? aw di tingali ka bisaya mao na
my freewebs site |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yssida
Joined: 16 Sep 2007 Posts: 253 Location: sa jaan lang
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I mean, a bit synthetic, sorry.
And, I think it applies to human languages in general. _________________ kasabot ka ani? aw di tingali ka bisaya mao na
my freewebs site |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eldin raigmore Admin
Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1621 Location: SouthEast Michigan
|
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
yssida wrote: | I think English might be nearer to the isolating end but still a bit fusional. That's just me, though. | That's what people usually say.
yssida wrote: | I mean, a bit synthetic, sorry. | That too.
yssida wrote: | And, I think it applies to human languages in general. | Yes. However there are some who doubt its usefulness in real life. But ideas remain useful for conlangers even if they turn out not to be as useful as was hoped for professional linguisticians of natlangs. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|