On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 23:14:04 -0500, Carlos Thompson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >muwivo afraro pesi muqaunul dikjakul >: The red dog bit me hard > >mufrari yskjaki diqaunul >: The dog's bite was hard I had the impression that "qaun" was "hard, strong" as in "rigid, stiff, solid, firm, durable" rather than "powerful, forceful" (the adjective = usage of "hard", as opposed to the adverb usage). This is a good case for using examples to clarify the meaning when the definition may be ambiguous. I think I can accept the interchangeability of noun and verb roots if we can come up with a good scheme for relating the meanings of the various forms consistently. I don't want to end up with Esperanto where you have = to memorize that you "marteli" [hammer] with a "martelo" rather than a "martelilo", or English where "bite" can be either the act of biting or = the impression left by the teeth. "Bite" might work well as an action root, with the result of the action expressed by adding a derivational affix. But other words, such as "photograph", may be more convenient as concrete nouns, with "the act of taking a photograph" expressed by derivation. In English, both "bite" and "photograph" can be used interchangeably as nouns or verbs, but the relation between the noun and verb meanings is incompatible.