> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of MacLeod Dave > > I kind of agree. I don't think that the compound > > structures have to always be derived from the same > > language. While it is true that Bislama offers some > > nice ideas "head-grass", there are others that can be > > derived from other languages that rely on compounding. > > I'm thinking of German and Chinese as examples. Hanzi > > compounds can sometimes be great inspiration. I don't > > think it's necessary to use a single source as long as > > the compounds are fairly transparent. Using "iron > > road" for "railway" is quite widespread around the > > world, for example. > Yeah, that's a pretty good one. If you don't take from a single source > though it's once again the whim of the creator. There could be > arguments about whether it was wise to call a railway an iron road but > then going with a completely different source in calling a panda a > bearcat (from Chinese) since panda is pretty international. On top of > that you can have a bit of resentment from choosing a certain source > (one that you know well, like Japanese) over another one that somebody > else thinks makes more sense. That's why it might be a good idea to go > with a single source, and a creole, since they're created from a > merger of languages anyway and it's no big deal if you favour the > Vanuatu worldview, certainly not as big as if your worldlang seems to > be Japanese in disguise. The choice of using all words from a single source is also the whim of its creator. I understand what you are saying about just grabbing words from just anywhere, but the only way to balance out things better and make it more neutral would be to go entirely a priori. It's an idea that I can get behind but I still like the idea of tacking on a mix of familiar labels to help students with memorization.