Italian vs Turkish

From: aslan kral (aslanski2002_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/12/05 

Date: 12 Jan 2005 03:48:58 -0800

mb wrote:
: Your own definition of infixes?

I should define the suffix first.

#define SUFFIX(x, y) x ## y
where I will call the x as modifiee (stem)
and y as modifier (suffix)
and ## is the concanation operator

SUFFIX function modifies the x (modifiee) by attaching y (modifier).

It is a recursive function.

M_0 = the stem without any suffix
M_1 = M_0 s_1
M_2 = M_1 s_2 = (M_0 s_1) s_2 = M_0 s_1 s_2
...
M_n = M_(n-1) s_n = ... = M_0 s_1 s_2 ... s_n

Example:
(1) Tr: Program = En: Program (n)
(2) Tr: Program -la = En: Program (v)
(3) Tr: Program -la -n = En: be programmed
(4) Tr: Program -la -n -abilir = En: can be programmed / programmable
(5) Tr: Program -la -n -abilir -lik = En: programmability

Here with every suffix added you can modify the part the suffix is
attached.
So -lik in (5) modifies (Programlanabilir).
And -abilir in (4) modifies (Programlan) so on.

This is the encoding part. Decoding can be done recursively as well
starting from the last one. Just match the last suffix with a suffix
in a set of suffixes. Repeat the process until a match is not
possible.

The suffix function is enough for Turkish. You can encode anything
with it.
You don't need any infix function. But since you ask for it, I would
define
it as follows.

Given a modifiee M_k (k > 0), you would add (insert) an infix i_(k+1)
in a way to modify M_k as follows:

M_k = M_0 ... s_k
M_(k+1) = M_0 ... i_(k+1) ... s_k (And this would modify M_k).

If you have any other definition let us know. Can you show an example
in Turkish into which you would insert an infix somewhere in the
middle in a way to modify it. I cannot think of any. But I have found
the following example for another language in a grammer book.

In an American Indian language (Yurok)
sepolah = field
se-go-polah = field-s

: This case is an infix if one considers this -E as different than the
-E
: suffix of the optative / wishing form (i.e. this one is not usable
: without an additional tense suffix). I agree it is borderline, and
one
: could defend that it is the same optative -E, though.

What you are saying here is not clear to me. What are you referring to
with "This case"?

: No similarities again.
: The lat is not -umus

Oh REALLY. I thought my source was OK. Why should I belive you?
Because you said so? You didn't even tell what it is if it is not
-umus. Why don't you tell the correct one so that I can check with
some other source which is right which is wrong.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?L=F6sung=3A_Dolmetscher_gesucht!?=
    ... Daher kam dem Rätselautor anscheinend die Idee, sie Suffixe zu nennen. ... Ein Suffix kann also von einem weiteren Suffix gefolgt werden, wodurch es _dann_ technitsch gesehen zum Infix wird, da hast Du recht. ... auch als Affix. ...
    (de.rec.denksport)
  • Re: C Programmieren wie die Profis
    ... #define MN2(prefix, suffix) XPN2 ... #define MN3(prefix, infix, suffix) XPN3 ... typedef struct ADT * ADT; ... void MN3; ...
    (de.comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Italian vs Turkish
    ... > I should define the suffix first. ... > You don't need any infix function. ... No need for a huge formulaic rewording for something so simple. ... I don't care if you want ...
    (sci.lang)