Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Phil Hunt:

> [log in to unmask] wrote:
> > Maybe, even after they've dropped the Whole Object
> > Assumption, children instinctively assume that words
> > have unique meanings & are not interchangeable.
> > Does this mean that the ideal auxlang should be
> > designed so that there are no true synonyms in its
> > lexicon?  You tell me.
> Yes, but not for this reason. If an auxlang has two root words that
> mean the same thing, then its vocabulary is bigger than if it only
> had one of these words. So if one is got rid of, its vocabulary
> will be (slightly) smaller, and thus easier to learn.
> Of course, it is likely that an auxlang will have more than one way of
> saying a concept that isn't a root word. Eg in Eurolang, the concept
> "fuel" can be expressed by:
> _combuster_ = stuff that burns
> _combustized_ = stuff that is burned
> _combustablon_ = stuff that can be burned

Phil, a root word meaning "fuel" would be better, IMHO.


Pasi Paernaenen -*- [log in to unmask] -*- webpage soon