On 28 May 2007 at 22:06, Steve Rice wrote:

> A quick guide:
> 2. Occidental is far more likely to feature consonant endings and
> especially 
> final consonant clusters. The past tense and both participles end in
> -t, for 
> example. Interlingua seldom has a word end in a double consonant.

Can you give us some examples of the "many" words ending in double consonants? I dont' 
find them. 

> 3. Occidental tends to use "unnaturally distorted" forms (that some
> of us find 
> easier to use), so you get "fat" and "scrit" instead of
> "facte"/"faceva" 
> and "scripte"/"scribeva."

Excuse me, but fat in Occidental has nothing to do with facte in ILa. Occidental uses facte for 
facte. The same as Ila copied from Occ.

Fat is the past tense of the verb far[to do]. And, in ILa the same word is facer.

> 4. Occidental uses "it," "noi," and other forms that Interlingua
> would never 
> consider actually using.

That's why Occidental is easier and more international than ILa.
And ILa uses nos for we. And, so does Occidental as in ples dar nos li libre, ma noi have un 


Ila:   Nos habe un libro.
Occ: Noi have un libre.

I like Occ better because it makes better sense. And is more international, don't you think?

Occ: Yo scri un lettre.
ILa:   Io scribe un littera.

I still prefer the Occ form. And, littera in Occ. is the letter of the alphabet.

Besides, in my science dictionary on how to from NEW science words from Latin it gives the 
basic form for to write as "scri-" not "scrib-" so I think Occ is still on the right track.

And, especially since that is the form designated by the guide for scientists in forming new 
words from Latin, and that is supposed to have been the hallmark of Ila. Occ agrees with the 
accepted work for doing just that.


> Steve