Word Chaining

The most powerful trick in SUL is chaining: snapping small words together into one longer word to build a bigger meaning. (Language nerds call this "agglutination" - you don't need to remember that.)

The Two Glue Letters

The glue is the letter itself: - is just how notation draws an n, and + how it draws a w. me-go is one word: me (us) + n + go (ogak) = usnogak.

In SUL writing the glue never stands in the row as a full symbol: the n glue is the small dot above the symbol it leads into, and the w glue is the short line reaching back at its neighbour. The letter "n" is just the romanized name for that dot's sound - thinking of it as an English n is fine for learning, but what you write is the dot.

What goes into one chain?

A sentence is a row of words, and each word is one chain built around one main piece. The rules for where a chain ends and the next word begins:

1. One word, one job. Each chain does exactly one job in the sentence: it's the who-plus-action word, or the thing being acted on, or a describing word. The sentence order is always who, then action, then thing - and joining words like "when", "until" and "if" always stand alone between the two thoughts they connect.
2. Only the little people-words ride the verb. Words like me, you and xhe glue onto the front of their verb (xhe-sing, me-arrive). A thing doing something stays its own word: "bird sings" is two words, not one chain. Why: me already means one exact person, so gluing onto it can't be misread - but glue on a word like dog says which one (dog-fast = the fast dog), so the doer keeps its gap.
3. The n glue applies to everything before it - the w glue grabs only its neighbour. Every piece joined with n applies to the whole word built so far (full-antonym = "empty", full-very-antonym = "the opposite of very full"). A piece joined with w changes only the piece right before it (cold+very = "very cold").
4. A describing word with its own describing word stays in the chain with +. In "like a bird", similar describes the bird, not the singing - so + points it at the bird: xhe-sing-bird+similar, one word.

Why not one giant chain, xhe-sing-bird-similar? A chain starting with a word like bird or place already means a combined word (place-learn = school), so bird-sing would be ambiguous between "a bird sings" and something like "songbird". Little words like me and you never build combined words - that is why only they ride the verb.

When both could say the same thing, the one-word chain IS the way to say it - one way to say everything. The split form exists only for meanings w cannot build: w grabs exactly one piece, so a helper that is itself a chain has to stand as its own word.

The w glue in action

Every one of these uses the w glue to point a piece at its neighbour instead of at the whole word:

Read from the inside out: in me-eat-want+no, the w points no at want alone - only the wanting is denied. In dog-3+ordinal, the w turns "3 dogs" into "the 3rd dog".

The w glue may stack: each w applies to everything before it since the last n. In story-bird+big+angry, big applies to bird, angry to big bird: "the story of the big angry bird".

The pieces always line up in the same order

Pieces glued onto one main word always line up in the same fixed order:

The table falls out of one rule: each piece applies to everything before it. Different orders are different meanings: me-go-want-past = "I wanted to go" (the wanting is past) - eat-want+no = "do not want to eat".

"Whose it is" belongs on words like dog and house - who/when/not/attitude belong on words like eat and go - no word takes both sets. The question piece is always dead last. Skip the plural when an exact number is given (dog-3). Joining words like "if" never glue.

Examples

A piece only fits where its job makes sense. "not" flips a claim: me-eat-no = "I do not eat". Glued into a name it has no real job: dog-wet-no would mean "anything that is not a wet dog" - a rock, a cat, last Tuesday all qualify - so it names nothing, and it is not a word. To name an opposite, glue antonym instead: dog-wet-antonym = "the dry dog". For a description with no clean opposite, use a clause: dog which wet-no = "the dog that is not wet". When in doubt, split into separate words.