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.