Quoth Bruce Gilson: > There are, in my mind, advantages to _both_ approaches. For a common > word, I believe it is better to have a short, simple word that will be > early-on learned anyway. Thus "mikra" of Ido (and its equivalents in > Novial, Occ, and Interlingua) is really better than "malgranda" in E-o > because "small" is a concept that occurs just as frequently as "large" > and both are very common. (It might help to still be allowed to USE > the antonym-making facility to allow for forgotten words, as in Don > H's "mallakso" story. Certainly in Novial, des- can be used in this > way, though normally would not in such a case.) It's very useful for medium-level speakers; far enough beyond "beginner" that they're trying to write/speak without recourse to a dictionary, but not experienced enough to know all the forms. I use DES-, NON-, and MAL- frequently, forming constructs like "desmemorar" (oblive), "desamar" (odiar), and so on. > I think that extremism in either dogma is not helpful. Tre ver. -- -=-Don [log in to unmask]<http://www.cs.brown.edu/~dpb/>-=- If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex in the box?