[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Sauropodz r kewl WAS: silly conversation on 2012 US presidential race



On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 4:53 PM,  <tyazbeck@comcast.net> wrote:
> My linguistic knowledge is rusty, to say the least, but isn't Latin as used 
> in nomenclature an agglutinative language? I like the flowing, descriptive 
> names that form in languages like that, much more so than Chinese and basic 
> English with their unpleasant abruptness. Where do you think George Orwell 
> got the idea for Newspeak?

Actually, Newspeak is agglutinative! Think of the prefixes "plus-" and
"doubleplus-".

Latin would be agglutinative if its affixes were unmodified when added
to words, or if the modification had simple rules. Turkish is
agglutinative.

Instead, Latin is fusional. Affixes are combined (a single affix can
indicate person, gender, plurality, etc.) and can be drastically
changed.

Fusional and agglutinative grammars are both types of synthetic
grammars (as opposed to isolating grammars, like Mandarin).

Old English was fusional, but has gotten progressively more isolating.

(As a programmer, I much prefer isolating grammars! If your tastes run
contrary, try Inuit -- a polysynthetic language.)
-- 
T. Michael Keesey
http://tmkeesey.net/