zompist bboard

What language/s take agglutination to its extreme? For example:

German) Schuh, Handschuh
Is there any language that takes it further, forming things like: foot-covering (shoe), hand-covering (glove), house-covering (roof), etc?

Esperanto) bona, malbona; alta, malalta
Is there any non-constructed language that forms the opposites of words as Esperanto does?

lsd wrote:Many languages do it some time, but no one does it all time
that why we conlang isnt it?

This reply seems completely irrelevant.

Why irrelevant ?
taking some linguistic things to its extreme is a conlanging way of thinking, never a natlang one...
(but your answer not better )

Terra wrote:What language/s take agglutination to its extreme?

Lakota, Navajo, Inuktitut...

Terra wrote:Is there any language that takes it further, forming things like: foot-covering (shoe), hand-covering (glove), house-covering (roof), etc?

Lots.

Terra wrote:Is there any non-constructed language that forms the opposites of words as Esperanto does?

No. Not every single opposite anyway, but plenty of languages including English add something to make an opposite (possible > impossible, etc.).

lsd wrote:You're right ! don't see we are in Languages & Linguistics
(but your answer not better )

But I have greater seniority, therefore I have more privileges.

Mr. Z wrote:But I have greater seniority, therefore I have more privileges.

PWN'd

Well, for some extreme examples look at the polysynthetic languages of the Americas, which allow for crazily long words due to compounding and incorporation. Astraios, richardspaghetti and Whimemsz may be able to give examples.

As for my own conlang (which is your typical agglutinating conlang), not too fossilized compounds usually only comprise of two elements (head and dependent), where the dependent is split off from the head when the head is marked for case and/or number, becoming a sort of modifier:

• nanga 'house' + trapas 'boat' → trapasnanga 'houseboat'
  but: trapasena nanga 'of/from the houseboat', trapasjyam nanga 'to/for the houseboats', trapaseri nanga 'because of the houseboat' etc.

Mr. Z wrote: But I have greater seniority, therefore I have more privileges.

That's how it works here.
Move along

you too old in the forum gotta read again rules of welcome to newcomers (it's newbies privileges )

Terra wrote:Esperanto) bona, malbona; alta, malalta
Is there any non-constructed language that forms the opposites of words as Esperanto does?

Mobilian Jargon seems to work like that, at least potentially. But that's a pidgin for you.

lsd wrote:you too old in the forum gotta read again rules of welcome to newcomers (it's newbies privileges )

Um... what?

Rand Valentine in his grammar of some of the eastern dialects of the Ojibwe dialect continuum gives the example gga-gchi-niisaakye-zaagji-ziinkiigmaane-bskiigdigwe-bmiboojgesahin, "I'll throw you down the hill so hard the snot will come out of your nose and your knees will buckle." As far as I can tell the breakdown of this is approximately:

g-ga-gchi-niis-aa-k-ye-zaag-ji-ziin-kii-gm-aan-e-bsk-ii-gdigw-e-bmi-boo-j-ge-sah-in
2-FUT-very-down-be:II-land?-?-come.out-?-extract.liquid-?-nose-nose?-INCRP-bend/turn.around-?-knee-INCRP-go.along-plow?-TI-ANTIPASSV-CAUS:TA-INVERSE

(where niisaak(i) "down-be-land?" together means "down the hill" and ziinkiigmaan "extract.liquid-?-nose-nose?" together means "snot")

Obviously though this is a really extreme example, most words are nowhere near that long (and yes, in spite of the hyphens of the standard orthography, that's all one word, since it begins with a person-marking proclitic and ends with an inflectional suffix)

------------

Asahi wrote:That was quite witty but weren't your comments a little rude?

Nobody likes being lectured by people who've just joined?

Asahi wrote:

Mr. Z wrote: But I have greater seniority, therefore I have more privileges.

That was quite witty but weren't your comments a little rude?

HOW RUDE

Thx but there is no insults
(i accept anybody advices even without any humor)

lsd wrote:Thx but there is no insults

Quit acting stupid and we'll quit insulting you.

lsd wrote:you too old in the forum gotta read again rules of welcome to newcomers (it's newbies privileges )

Rules are de jure, not de facto. It's anarchy here.

Drydic Guy wrote:

lsd wrote:Thx but there is no insults :D

Quit acting stupid and we'll quit insulting you.

It does seem like the insults are a bit out of proportion to the level of stupid. And it's hard to tell how much is just lsd's difficulty with English.

Whimemsz wrote:Obviously though this is a really extreme example, most words are nowhere near that long (and yes, in spite of the hyphens of the standard orthography, that's all one word, since it begins with a person-marking proclitic and ends with an inflectional suffix)

Oh man, I was all set to post a long Seneca word and now it seems short by comparison. The Seneca word for `door' is incorporated into the verb `open' and then nominalized to yield the word for `key' (`it-opens-doors', I guess). The word for `key' can then be incorporated into the verb `turn', giving this:

ʔoʔkehotɔkwaʔshǽkaha:thoʔ
ʔoʔke-ho-tɔ-kwa-ʔshǽ-kahat-ho-ʔ
pronom.-door-close-oppositive-nominalizer-turn-causative-aspect.suffix

(I'm not sure about the specific gloss of the pronominal prefixes).

Noun incorporated into verb, nominalized, then incorporated into another verb. Iroquoian is awesome.

-------------

Asahi wrote:

Drydic Guy wrote:

Asahi wrote:

Mr. Z wrote: But I have greater seniority, therefore I have more privileges.

That was quite witty but weren't your comments a little rude?

HOW RUDE

oh nevermind -.-

Stick to the topic of agglutination, please.

Matt wrote:

Whimemsz wrote:Obviously though this is a really extreme example, most words are nowhere near that long (and yes, in spite of the hyphens of the standard orthography, that's all one word, since it begins with a person-marking proclitic and ends with an inflectional suffix)

Oh man, I was all set to post a long Seneca word and now it seems short by comparison. The Seneca word for `door' is incorporated into the verb `open' and then nominalized to yield the word for `key' (`it-opens-doors', I guess). The word for `key' can then be incorporated into the verb `turn', giving this:

ʔoʔkehotɔkwaʔshǽkaha:thoʔ
ʔoʔke-ho-tɔ-kwa-ʔshǽ-kahat-ho-ʔ
pronom.-door-close-oppositive-nominalizer-turn-causative-aspect.suffix

(I'm not sure about the specific gloss of the pronominal prefixes).

Noun incorporated into verb, nominalized, then incorporated into another verb. Iroquoian is awesome.

That is awesome. Not only do they derive "key" from other words, but even "close" is just "opposite-of-open".

Terra wrote:

Asahi wrote:

Drydic Guy wrote:

Asahi wrote:

Mr. Z wrote: But I have greater seniority, therefore I have more privileges.

That was quite witty but weren't your comments a little rude?

HOW RUDE

oh nevermind -.-

Stick to the topic of agglutination, please.

NO NEVER :bangs on pots and pans and marches around the room:

I'd look up compounding in Sanskrit if I were you. It's not grammatically agglutinative, but its compounds can be very...large.

Drydic Guy wrote:NO NEVER :bangs on pots and pans and marches around the room:

I'd look up compounding in Sanskrit if I were you. It's not grammatically agglutinative, but its compounds can be very...large.

The topic of this thread has always seemed like "Hey do any languages have compound words that English doesn't?" to me, and to have nothing to do with agglutination.

Xephyr wrote:

Drydic Guy wrote:NO NEVER :bangs on pots and pans and marches around the room:

I'd look up compounding in Sanskrit if I were you. It's not grammatically agglutinative, but its compounds can be very...large.

The topic of this thread has always seemed like "Hey do any languages have compound words that English doesn't?" to me, and to have nothing to do with agglutination.

'Struth.