Print

Print


On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:57:50 +0200, B Philip Jonsson <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
 
>> Not me. I totally agree with you, and that's why I advocate for a IAL
>> in which the majority of words are autodefined.
>
>When you say "the majority of words are autodefined" do you mean that =
the
>remainder are the root-words? If not, which kind of words would this be?
 
Of course they are root-words. Do you know another posibility?
(perhaps you are thinking of a philosophy lang?)
 
>> This means that we
>> have first a base of (say) 1000 roots and we construct the rest of the
>> vocabulary over them.
>
>I have cause to believe that 1000 roots is about the bottom limit of
>practicality, so I would put the mark at ca 1500
 
Well, in Auxa (as I'm developing it), 1000 roots will do the work for
ca 2000 roots of Esperanto. I think that in a language like Eo 2000
roots are enough for almost all situations.
 
>
>[snip]
>> The rest of the
>> vocabulary (that's compounded, derived words), wouldn't need
>> explanation nor memorization cause they simply explain themselves.
>> We have examples of this on esperanto (and Ido in less degree), but
>> the idea hasn't been exploited nor even on 50% of its power.
>
>I would caution against too many narrowly defined affixes though: they =
may
>easily be overused, defeating the purpose of clarity, in cases where
>root-compounding might work as well or better -- i.e. be semantically
>clearer.  In a sense an affixed word should be regarded as a shorthand =
for
>a longer compound or phrase.
 
Yes, that's right. I think that an affix should be created when: 1.
There are a lot of compounded words which may take profit of it. 2. It
would avoid a certain quantity of new roots on the system.
Anyway, some important words that have been formed by adding several
afixes to the root should be substituted by new roots, specially if
these roots are quite international (say to be present at 3 or 4 of
the "big natlangs").
 
 
>> Well, that's one of the benefits of root economy, besides memory
>> relieve, and also more neutrality (because it gets more independent
>> from european langs).
>
>I agree about all points but the last: to me true international =
neutrality
>would mean either that the vocab (and grammar!) be evenly derived from
>source-languages scattered all over the globe -- I doubt this is =
possible
 
Well, that's true, but I haven't said Auxa to be neutral. I just say
it will be more neutral than current euroclones, cause the difference
of learning dificulty for occidental and non-occidental students would
be quite lesser.
 
 
 
Saludos,
Marcos