Print

Print


--- [log in to unmask] wrote:

> The only thing here is that suffixes like "-ist",
> "-ero" or whatever
> don't mean "person" but specifiy some specific type
> relationship to
> the verb they are attached to.  It's not just enough
> to say
> something like "law-person" which could be an
> attorney, a policeman,
> a judge or maybe even a legislator.

That could be a problem in that specific case, but I
don't think a suffix is necessarily a solution. If I
see a word in an IAL that is, for example,
"legal-isto", I also would wonder if it means an
attorney, policement, judge, or legislator. 

One criticism you could make of our system of using
"-yan" is that you have to have different words for
say a carnivorous animal and a carnivorous person.
"Meat-eat-person" and "meat-eat-animal". In Japanese
that distinction is made. A vegetarian is called a
"vegetable-eat-believer", whereas a herbivore is
called a "vegetable-eat-animal". I think the advantage
of "isto" is that you can also use it for tools, for
example. But in languages like Neo Patwa and Pandunia
we have a word for "tool" as well, so it's not hard to
make a compound. 

Jens Wilkinson
Neo Patwa language: http://patwa.pbwiki.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com