> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jim Henry

> > > Does this mean that no morpheme in Sasxsek contains a
> > > prefix or suffix substring that looks like another real morpheme?
> > > Or does it just mean that such substring matches are few?
> > Substring matches (ex: "saf" and "safat") are still 
> possible.  Suffix
> > conflicts are specifically avoided.  Prefixes don't exist.
> >
> > For example, I can have a word like "finin" ("endless, infinite" <-
> > fin=end, -in=no, non, un-, -less, etc.) which means I will 
> not make any
> > more roots which begin with "fin+{any suffix}" making it 
> impossible to
> > have another root containing "finin".
> So you have "saf" and "safat" -- but can I infer that there is
> no "-at" suffix that could cause real ambiguity there?

No, there is no "-at" suffix.  I still try to avoid situations like this
but it just so happens that the meanings of these two are somewhat
related (saf=white, safat=clean) so allowed it.

> And do you avoid ending any roots with "-in" and all
> other actually used suffixes? 

There are some allowed cases of roots ending in "-in" (or others)
because they create no conflict.  Words like "karin" create no issues
because <r> can not be a final.

> Have you ever had conflicts
> with old roots containing a substring match for a newly
> introduced suffix?  If so did you remake the old roots
> to eliminate such conflicts?

The suffixes that exist are basically the same ones that have existed
from the beginning.  About the only major change was changing "-ut" to
"-o", and I am considering taking "-um" and assigning it to "-e" because
it's so common.  I'm also thinking about adding two suffixes to indicate
sex, which is currently indicated only through adjectives.

dejnx nxtxr / Dana Nutter