[YG Conlang Archives] > [Latejami group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
With "transparency" I simply meant that the meanings of words are more apparent from their forms. With "neutrality" I meant that you don't have to choose the defaults based on what they happen to be in a particular natlang, or by whim. Take "learo" from Raikudu as an example. It means "this". Now, a certain natlang could have the basic word to be an adjective, and derive the noun from it. Another natlang might have the basic word to be a noun, and derive the adjective from it. In English it is both through null derivation. So what should "learo" be? In Lirakdom, on the other hand, you have "tištam" (noun) and "tištaw" (adj.) which both have the same status, both are as basic as the other. The same applies to argument structures: should "eat" be the default, or should "feed" be? With mandatory inflection for argument structure I don't have to choose, and the transparency of words increases. -- Veoler FaqSphinx wrote: > transparency and neutrality > > Now this is interesting. I am clearly a devotee of regularity. Like alot of > my ilk I am deeply impressed with a highly productive, exceptionless rule. > > What are transparency and neutrality? > > I don't know if I have read much on these virtues. > > FaqSphinx >