Kjell R. skripted:

> >PS. I'm not happy about the root "konsiliate".  Why is it not
> >"konsilia" ?  Other than that this Novial works rather well,
> >don't you think?
>Qui sape? In mi opinion tu pote multo ben scriber _consiliabli_
>_consiliatebli_ ha le aspecto de esser troppo de un anglicismo.

I *can* handle this quantity of Interlingua, but I still think an
English translation would be helpful.
I actually think that including -t- in the verb stem is going back
to the Esp-Ido habit of including part of the suffix in the root.
Let me quote Jespersen from AIL:
"Some words in -ione are taken over in N ready-made without any
 corresponding verb from which they can be derived according to
 these [the aforementioned] rules, e.g. okasione, emotione,
 sektione, funktione - some of these are themselves starting-points
 for new formations (vb -a).  The same is the case to some extent in
 Ido, which has not -iono or -ationo as derivative suffix, but which
 has a certain number of words in -iono besides some in -aco, vb
 -acar, taken from national-language words in -ation in half-
 Russian dress, due to Zamenhof: formaco from formation (R formatsia),
 operaco, naraco; similarly atenco (=N atentione from atente)."

Jespersen does not seem to approve of the Ido words in -aco.  So
why, then, include the -t- in the stem of N verbs like
"konsiliate"?  This, to be sure, forms the required derivative
"konsiliatione", but so would it if it were where it should be,
in the a-class, so "konsilia, konsiliatione".  I don't think this
is an isolated instance, though I think I've only come across one
or two others in NL.
My theory is that J didn't want a clash between this and "konsilie"
= F concile, E council (of the church).  He takes "konsilIe" for this,
because he has "konsile" for F conseil, E advice.  But J is not
consistent in his rules in this area.  In some cases it is ok
to take root-e and root-a with different meanings, and in others
not.  A further way out would have been to take "konsele" for
F conseil (cf. E counsel) and "konsile" for F concile, thus leaving
"konsilia" free for E conciliate, F concilier.  Such are the
pitfalls in vocabulary selection.

To continue the quote:
"In other cases Ido has changed Esp -io into -iono: naciono,
 profesiono, prepoziciono, but without consistency: religio,

J is of course right that for consistency in the root forms,
these should have been "religiono, ambiciono".  But the Ido
forms also just happen to give perfect -oz- derivatives:
religioza, ambicioza.   The N equivalents are religionosi,
ambitionosi.  As there are no other derivatives to consider,
it really comes down to which one you most want to preserve.
This may come down to forms are familiar to the greatest
number of people.  But the prevailing tendency in N is to
fix the derivatives and let the roots look after themselves,
so perhaps "religie, ambitie" would be better here.

To finish the quote:
"Esp as usual is even less consistent: by the side of nacio,
 misio, etc., it has kondicho, okazo, and even haladzo
 exhalation (!)."

So whatever we do, we do better than Esp.

James Chandler
[log in to unmask]