Print

Print


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?