Are you searching for a reliable Oligo Synthesis Service Provider in Canada? Look no further than Bio Basic.

For over 15 groundbreaking years, we have been pioneering the synthesis of oligonucleotides for cutting-edge research. Our state-of-the-art facilities specialize in large-volume custom production, guaranteeing unwavering quality through automation. But that's not all! From Linkers to Fluorophores, Spacers to Quenchers, we offer an array of modifications tailored to your needs. 

Download our order form today to request a quotation or place an order!

For more details : https://www.biobasic.com/oligo-synthesis/ 

Kinda spitballing a hypothesis here based off of an I once saw somewhere in the conlanging corner of the internet (I think it was on an episode of Conlangery talking about extremely regular philosophical languages? @gacorley might remember), but I've got an idea about lexical structure, because it seems to me like there's two opposing trends in Language when it comes to semantic fields.

On the one hand, from the perspective of acquisition and to some extent production it's nice to have words that are derivationally related to each other, both because it makes it possible to 'work out' the meaning of the word even in the absence of actual real-world context and because new words can easily be coined to fill lacunae in vocabulary. 'My father is a weaver; What does he do for a living? He weaves' kinda stuff.

But on the other hand, from the perspective of perception you don't really want words that sound similar to each other, particularly in the same semantic field, because when you're talking about those topics, well, if everything sounds similar (especially in a noisy environment where you might not be able to hear entirely clearly) then you're going to start to get confused very quickly. 'Judges judge what judgements are just' sort of thing (see also 'oligosynthesis'), as well as of course 'Acronym and Abbreviation Overload' type phenomena (after all, there's only 26 possible syllables in an acronym...).

I think the fact that languages will vary between favouring one over the other does likely have impacts on learnability. The effect is not going to be major in comparison to other things, but there's unlikely to be nothing there.

For instance, obviously for a speaker of a language that makes a lot of use of derivation (Russian, say), English must be made harder to learn by the number of separate roots needed (like we have entirely different roots for the meat of domestic animals for pity's sake!).

But at the same time, for me, a native speaker of English, part of the irritation of learning Russian is that nobody is there teaching you the derivational morphology that enables you to make a guess at the approximate meaning of расследование from identifying the root (след 'trail') and building up from there (verbaliser -ова-, prepositional prefix рас- and adjectivaliser/abstract nominaliser -ние; the end result means 'investigation'), nor am I really that used to making use of that because in English you so often can't.

I'll note that this is kind of similar to a proposal made in Trudgill's Sociolinguistic Typology (2011), where he points out that small sound systems like Hawai'ian can be found in isolated languages precisely because all the words start to sound the same and context (i.e. shared background information between participants, more available in smaller societies) is more necessary to disambiguate what's being said. I think what I'm proposing is kinda orthogonal to this, because both extremes are kinda difficult, and there's several kinds of factor which can influence a language's tendency in either direction (English for instance has its several layers of historically more prestigious foreign vocabulary from having spent time as the language of an underclass, while 'pidgin-adjacent' creoles are of course forced to 'make do' with limited lexical resources they have, thus giving rise to stuff like Tok Pisin gras bilong fes 'beard'), but perhaps that's something for me to write about somewhere else.

#2: “oligosynthesis” > “litchsomdeed”

Ancient Greek *ὀλιγοσύνθεσις < *h₃ligo-som-dʰeh₁-tis > PGmc *lika-sam-dēdiz > OE liċsamdēd > ModE litchsomdeed /ˈlɪtʃsɔmdiːd/

(Note: while ὀλιγοσύνθεσις is not attested I will act like it was, and so on for future posts.)

PIE form: ὀλίγος is one of those words that's really just inherently internally reconstructible (it's ambiguous whether it's g or ǵ but that doesn't matter), which is good because the only other cognate is Armenian. σύν is harder, and I've chosen to reconstruct *sóm per Beekes (if I balk every time I see a root that we don’t know the reconstruction of, I’m going to be doing precious few posts.) θε-σις is the much-clearer *dʰeh₁-tis, which also has an attested Germanic descendant in...

Germanic form: *dēdiz, which is kind of surprising, since because the PIE word is barytone you'd expect *dēþiz (and if it were from an oblique form you’d expect *dadiz.) But because attested irregularities trump regular sound changes in my book, I go with *dēdiz (if it were *þ you’d have “litchsomdeeth”.) Back to the first part of the compound: this too is pretty elementary; the initial laryngeal disappears, *g > *k by Grimm's law. (As for *dʰeh₁tis, *eh₁ > *ē, *dʰ > *d and *t > *þ by Grimm, *þ > *d and *s > *z by Verner.) *som becomes *sam.

Old English form: *k is palatalized by the preceding *i. *a is syncopated out (good riddance). *sam stays the same (it *could* become som, and if this word were real those forms would probably both be attested, becoming “litchsomdeed”) but *iz > *i in West Germanic, and the *i is lost due to high-vowel loss.

Modern English form: Final ċ is spelled “tch” after a short vowel. ē becomes ME /e:/, spelt <ee>, and this spelling survives into English (besides, it's really just "deed" anyway.)

It’s also arguable that *som would assimilate into *son the way it did in Greek and Latin, both of which liked prepositions a *lot* more than English does. However, it’d be without precedent, and it’s worth noting that German does not assimilate anything (e.g. anbringen).