All of this may be wrong or slightly inaccurate, but I answered to the best of my knowledge.
Looks right to me, thanks!
I think in some morphologies, in particular tlHingaan morphology, semantic scope does count.
There is a negating morpheme that can negate just one of the word’s other morphemes.
Maybe it’s the one just before it; maybe it’s the one just after it.
At any rate this negating morpheme is a “floater”; there are several places in a word it can be used, and though I can’t remember an example I think it can have two or more instances in the same word, if two or more of the word’s other morphemes need negation.
I don’t know of a natlang example of that.
In some (possibly only theoretical?) morphologies, strings of morpheme-types can be repeated in a single word.
This would be the result of applying a Kleene star to some sub-expression of a regular expression that already involved more than one type.
So this would be more complicated than the idea (I think) you said of having two or more consecutive occurrences of morphemes of the same type in a given slot.
I don’t think I’d call that ‘templatic” nor “slot-and-filler”.
But the idea of optionally having two or more consecutive morphemes of a given type, is more complex than the morphologies I have recently become interested in. In effect, for them, the Kleene star is available as the innermost operation; but once some operation has been applied, the Kleene star can’t be applied subsequently.
I think I
would call those “templatic” or “slot-and-filler”.
The morphologies I have been thinking about lately wouldn’t allow more than one representative of the class of morpheme that goes in a given slot, to be put in that slot simultaneously with each other, to make an acceptable, well-formed word.
Within the words of any given part-of-speech, any two morphemes of different types that both occur in the word, would have to occur in a particular order that depends (only) on their types.
However probably most slots are optionally empty.
At least one would have to be mandatory, though.
....
I suppose a morphology could be “almost templatic”.
Maybe 99.9% of the time questions about which kinds of morphemes can go where in which kinds of words, and which orders which kinds of morphemes can come in in words, can be deterministically answered by knowing the class of the word and the type(s) of the morpheme(s).
And the other 0.1% are handled in some other, more complicated manner.
....
It’s possible, or at least it seems possible to me, that somewhere among natlangs and/or conlangs, there is a morphology describable by a CFG but not by a finite-state automaton.
If there is I either never saw it or can’t remember a thing about it.
.....
How would one go about guaranteeing that no two distinct words shared an initial substring that was more than 2/3 of one and more than 3/4 of the other?
And/or no two distinct words shared a final substring that was more than 3/5 of one and more than 2/3 of the other?
Etc.?
If there is an answer is it related to these questions?
What does any of this post do to compound words?