Talk:List of self-segregating morphology methods

About: ("auto-" or "self-")-("-isolating" or "-segregating) syntax.

i.e. "unambiguous parseability"; or, "uniquely defined parse-trees uniquely recoverable from the utterance-string".

--

Note: perhaps this belongs in a slightly-different topic. "Self-Segregating Morphology" is about making morpheme-boundaries, syllable-boundaries, and/or word-boundaries, uniquely recoverable from the utterance string.

I am talking here about making phrase-boundaries, clause-boundaries, sentence-boundaries, and syntagm-boundaries uniquely recoverable from the utterance string. In this case, I assume word-boundaries are already established somehow; I don't discuss how.

Many of the methods are parallel, of course.

--

I (eldin raigmore) was asked to discuss some of the methods I mentioned earlier; specifically, those not equivalent to the ones previously discussed by others.

This is not that discussion, yet; partly because I haven't yet had the time to figure out which of the methods I've mentioned aren't equivalent to those already discussed, and partly because I haven't had the time to figure out what to say about them.

--

Nevertheless, I am going to mention two techniques similar to, and inspired by, what has been written to me by Jonathan Knibb and by And Rosta.

I do not have a proof that I personally comprehend yet to tell me that either one of these techniques is actually bound to work. But I think they're at least worth looking into.

--

Jonathon Knibb has a conlang, "T4", in which every lexical item (every "word") is monomorphemic (so there is no difference between a "morpheme" and a "word"), and in which every syntagm is a "phrase".

T4 satisfies the following recursively-applicable two-rule conditions; 1. A phrase may consist of a single word, or; 2. a phrase may consist of two phrases, separated by an "operator".

By arranging that one can always locate the operator(s) and the phrase-boundaries and the word-boundaries, Jonathan makes T4 unambiguously parseable; there is only one way to assign a tree structure to any given T4 utterance, and it has the property that every non-leaf node has exactly two children and is labeled by an "operator".

--

And. Rosta has a conlang, I think it's called Livagian -- forgive me if I've mis-spelled it, And. -- which marks operators and operands with inflections or desinences about each other so that each syntagm can be uniquely recoverable from the utterance string.

The following discussion is about a generalization of some various techniques, some of which And has used in various incarnations of Livagian up to date.

A syntagm may consist of any two or more constituents; exactly one constituent of a syntagm is its operator, all of the others are its operands.

Each such component is either a word or a syntagm.

A word which is not an operator is marked with an inflection indicating that fact. (Maybe that inflection is spelled-out phonologically as a zero.) In effect words so marked are the "leaf-nodes".

If a syntagm is not a constituent of a larger syntagm, its operator-constituent is marked with an inflection indicating that fact. (Maybe that inflection is spelled-out phonologically as a zero.) In effect syntagmas so marked are the "root-nodes".

If a word is an operand, or is the operator of a syntagm which is an operand, it is inflected to indicate the following; 1. It is the first operand OR ELSE it is not the first operand of its operator. 2. It is the last operand OR ELSE it is not the last operand of its operator. 3. It immediately precedes its operator OR it precedes its operator, but not immediately OR it immediately follows its operator OR it follows its operator, but not immediately.

(Counting the "its not an operand and doesn't have an operator" possibility, there are 13 combinations possible; because the first operand can't follow the operator except immediately, and the last operand can't precede the operator except immediately.)

If a word is the operator of a syntagm, it is inflected to indicate the following; 1. how many operands it has 2. whether its first operand; 2a precedes it, but not immmediately so 2b immediately precedes it 2c immediately follows it. 3. whether its last operand; 3a immediately precedes it 3b immediately follows it 3c follows it, but not immediately so.

More later.