zlikthnolt dec kecycnanymnoc thekfeh dic theh.

> Shall we repurpose "fmolthyt" to mean "duty, responsibility, a thing
> one ought to do"?

That seems like a good idea.

> How are we distinguishing between "sin" and "golm"?  Bee has added
> cross-references between them, but is not sure how to clarify their
> definitions for clearer distinction.

The best I can think of would be the difference between "Do the thing!" and
"You ought to do the thing."

> Spider thinks we need a negative suffix to use in derivations like
> this, rather than compounding the negative verb.  A compound with the
> negative verb as its head would seem to be a verb, not an adjective.
> Perhaps:
> cehk -xeht thom "(suffix) not, non-"
> Duhdenxehtzhut zaneht Shesheln.

There had been discussion on Skype a week a 2 ago about negatives. It was
proposed that we distinguish between "lack of", "other than", and "anti-".

[5/28/16, 12:39:40 PM] Stone (Guest): so, returning to a previous example,
dasnanzlnatelc = lack of naturalness, dasnanmultholn = "unnatural",
dasnanmultholnmun = "A Lovecraftian monstrosity or something blatantly
violating physics"

How about -xeht is lack, and -uk is other, and -ukmun is anti-?

melsulmvmeh vmelfelcvmeh tanzlulcah thekfeh sat zlo dasnanvah.