>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.
Would you then create the word _demonstratebli_ as well? It is an _a-verb_
in Interlingua because it is what it is in other languages that show this
origine. So I would guess that _demonstrabli_ is good Novial. Or is it

Some text snipped:
>"...  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.
Sure, you have _conciliatory_ in English.
Some latin verbs are given extra decorations to fit into English grammar. I
can only for the moment remember
_micturate_ for Latin _minger_.

This is an ordinary way that German and the Scandinavian languages handle
latin infinitives - via French. Best example I can remember is
interlingua  dominar
probably french _dominer_
German _dominieren_
and isn't the English _to domineer_?!
Scandinavian languages have _dominera/e (some use -a, others -e)
(Cannot check Icelandic right now).
Does Novial have _dominabli_ o _dominatebli_.
Interesting language!

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

Probably they did not see the relation between _-ion_ in _nationo_ and
_*religiono_. Before having taken Latin I felt the -ion words being a
special class in Swedish and English. Polish and Russian - as Jespersen
noted - treat those words as feminines in -ia...

>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.

I don't know if it is my knowledge of Esperanto that makes it possible to
me to read the Novial texts without any difficulty. The problem would be to
use it actively.

Kjell [log in to unmask]
Kjell Rehnstroem
Vaenortsgatan 87
S-752 64  UPPSALA
Suedia - Sweden