Print

Print


On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Michael Wettstein
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Lurker here. French has several abstractive/categorizing nominalizers (-eco in Esperanto, -(ish)ness in English), including -eur, -esse, -(i)té and -(i)tude, with varying degrees of preference as to the type of root they nominalize.

Thanks.  I've encountered all those, but my use of French is almost
entirely passive (and mainly involves reading old books), so wasn't
sure which of them are still productive.

> In my experience, -itude is the most-often used of the lot to coin such a noun when no such nominal form of the root exists in French; for instance, I have seen "louvitude" (in quotes) coined as a French equivalent to English "wolfishness".  Applied to "parole", the only two that sound halfway "natural" - even if they don't exist in the dictionary (at least, not in the "petit Robert") - are "parolité" or "parolitude", with "parolitude" sounding best to me (a native English speaker, but a long-time and native-level speaker of French).

Either sounds good to me, with possible anglicizations "parolity"
(dubious) and "parolitude" (pretty good).  Christophe, what do you
think (assuming you're reading this thread)?

What about corresponding adjective forms?  Say, for instance, you
wanted to say "Esperanto is more ___ than most other conlangs" rather
than "Esperanto has more parolitude than most other conlangs"?  Would
parolâtre make sense there?  parolâtre doesn't have an obvious
anglicization (maybe "parolish"?) but then, neither does "parole" in
the Saussurian sense.

> Hyper-brief intro:  Esperanto is the only conlang I speak, but I am curious about the broader field of conlangs and interested in languages

Bonvenon / vjurm-θaj-huw-van / o kama pona / welcome!

-- 
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/