[NGL] -ig suffix question
Jack Durst
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gerald Koenig <j...@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [NGL] -ig suffix question
From: Gerald Koenig <j...@netcom.com>
>
>From: Stephen DeGrace <c72...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca>
>
>On Thu, 7 Oct 1999 14:49:55 -0700 (PDT), Gerald Koenig
><j...@netcom.com> wrote:
>[...]
>>Any marriage:
>>
>>nex v marry
>>nex-xi n-->
>>nexi n matrimony
>>nexi-i adj-->
>>nexisi matrimonial
>>nexisi-ig adv -->
>>nexisisig adv matrimonially
>>CVCVCVCVC
>>
>>
>>I'll propose this if it's wanted.
>>
>>Jerry
>
>Hmm. The benefit to this idea is that it would allow unambiguous
>parsing of constructions which are now ambiguous (in writing and in
>speech of any dialect which doesn't make a point of pronouncing
>unwritten long vowels) by the reduction rules. The disadvantage is
>that it's going to make some words significantly longer in our
>language which already suffers from a tendency towards longer words
>simply by its phonology. It could be that context can distinguish most
>ambiguities currently present and that this additional "precision",
>for want of a better word, is not really required. Maybe we could just
>try it for a while and see? How does that come across?
Yes, thank you. This one got out of the oven half-baked, but I think it
is much better now. Take a look.
>
>Stephen
>
>
Subject: Re: [NGL] -ig suffix question
>From: Jack Durst <sp...@sierra.net>
>On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Gerald Koenig wrote:
>> >From the Cheet-sheet:
>> -ig is Av
>> Does -ig derive an adverb from both a verb and a noun, or from
>> a noun only?
>{-ig} can derive from any part of speach except adverb. If you want to
>get into the nitty-gritty of it, though, it technically only derives from
>adjectives.
>This is because of the double-letter rule. {-i} derives either a noun or
>a verb into an adjective, {-ig} derives an adjective into an adverb.
>{-i-ig} condenses into {-ig} (with a long I) because of the double letter
>rule, so, as a consiquence, {-ig} appears to derive any part of speach
>into an adverb, but, paradoxically, is short when it derives from an
>adjective not ending in I.
>The same thing accounts for the fact that {-ci} can either be a noun or an
>adjective. The adjective form has a long I because it's {-ci-i} while the
>noun form is short in speach, being {-ci} under the double-letter rule.
[edited and expanded:]
I worked around the problem of unruly long vowel strings in the
infinitive and participle suffixes in VXT by introducing a buffer
consonant, "s".
Traditional marriage: ci::- essential qualities of [anyword]
ORIGINAL DERIVATIONS: [LONG FORMS]
nex v to marry
nexci n marriage, matrimony
nexci-i adj--->
nexcisi adj matrimonial
nexcisi-ig adv--->
nexcisisig adv matrimonially
4 syl. 6syl.
These words carry their derivational history along with them by the
successive addition of suffixes, resulting in some derivational
baggage, as Jack has observed. Note that they are nonetheless shorter
than English, my gold standard. However they can be made still shorter
with TVS plus a buffer consonant "S" with no increase in ambiguity as
follows:
NEW DERIVATIONS: "S" capitalized for visibility only.
The new set:
nex marry verb stem
nexci marriage noun
nexciSi marital, matrimonal adjective
(marriage-essence-adjective)
nexcig maritally, matrimonially adverb
(marriage-essence-adverb.)
The new set only requires one buffer consonant. The benefit is accuracy.
xxxx
----
LONG FORMS; xi EXAMPLE:
Any marriage nexi: xi::- some qualities of [anyword]
verb--->noun|adj
TVS LONG DERIVATION with VXT DERIVATIONS
VXT buffer "s":
nex v. marry [v. stem] nIR`ex (nirex) to marry, v. inf.
nex-xi -->
nexi n matrimony, marriage. nexuom::-marrying-noun
[Marrying is an institution]
nexi-i adj-->
nexisi matrimonial nexiem::-marrying-adj [marrying ceremony]
nexisi-ig adv -->
nexisisig adv matrimonially. nexoem::-marrying-adv [marryingly speaking]
------
The new set: VXT:
with VXT-TVS buffer "S":
nex v. nir`ex <marry,stem> |to marry verb
nexi n. nexuem marriage, matrimony noun.
nexiSi adj nexiem marital, matrimonial adjective.
nexig adv. nexoem maritally, matrimonially adverb.
The VXT forms retain a verbal "flavor" of activity from their origin as
participles: a marrying, marrying ceremony, marryingly speaking. The
-xi or -ci forms have a flavor of quality abstraction or essence.:
marriage-essence, marriage-essential, marriage-essentially. These to me
are like overtones on notes that are the same formal pitch, played by
two different instruments.
Comments, Anyone?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jerry
--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
Go shopping. GET CASH BACK. Go shopping. GET CASH BACK.
DASH turns the Web into a virtual mall where you get up to 25 percent
cash back at Musician's Friend, furniture.com and 75 more! Join for FREE!
<a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/dash4 ">Click Here</a>
------------------------------------------------------------------------