Print

Print


Kjell Rehnstroem
 wrote:
 
>  ... Il non noce
>(hurts) si on etiam usa _insect-science_ illo es comprensibile, ma illo es
>un explication del verbo (word) entomologia.
 
Given that, with which I agree, why has there been such a long attack on Phil
Hunt's choice of words?
 
I tend to believe in having a relatively rich vocabulary, which helps the writer
say exactly what he means, but burdens the reader with more learning. Phil
believes in a sparser vocabulary, which allows the reader to gain a fuller
command sooner, but in many cases means that precision in writing requires more
words. I happen to agree with Kjell that a word like "entomology" is interna-
tionally enough known that some form, with the appropriate ending for the
structure of the language, of this word would not be a significant burden in
learning. But there is some merit in Phil's philosophy of limited vocabulary,
and "insect-science" (being composed of elements of great internationality) is
a reasonable word in a limited-vocabulary IAL.
 
                                Bruce R. Gilson
                                email: [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
                                IRC: EZ-as-pi
                                WWW: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3141
                                (for language stuff: add /langpage.html)