Print

Print


Julian wrote:
>
>I mentioned this in reference to 'acciper'.  Even if a form
>based on 'acciper' is not found in any existing language it
>_might_ be worth admitting on the grounds that it "fills a hole"
>in the language.  If reciper/recept-, conciper/concept-,... why
>not acciper/accept-.  I can even imagine speakers spontaneously
>creating the from because they have subconsciously learned the
>pattern.  (Back-formation occurs in English; why not in
>Interlingua?)
 
Interesting that you mentioned this. I have often felt the need of
_acciper_ and certainly even written it without thinking that it may not
exist in Interlingua.
 
I remember very vividly an example of a very good Interlingua Speaker using
the form _arabo_ = lingua arabe = Arabic instead of the expected _arabe_.
Thi interlingua Grammar does not accept the -o for language and male
inhabitant for words that end in -e, like _arabe_. But of course this
pattern was so strong in this persons mind. I thought it was an excellent
formation.
 
This instant may be a good support of my idea that auxiliary language under
construction should be used in practice as much as possible in order to
give the constructors minds a chance to find out underlying rules that you
do not see during the trivial grammar-hatching work.
 
 
 
Kjell [log in to unmask]
Kjell Rehnstroem
Vaenortsgatan 87
S-752 64  UPPSALA
Suedia - Sweden