In a message dated 11/9/98 5:46:33 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:

>-----Wiadomo=B6=E6 orginalna-----
>Od: Josh Roth <[log in to unmask]>
>Do: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG <[log in to unmask]>
>Data: 4 listopada 1998 04:35
>Temat: Re: Three questions from a lurker
>>kye + fe=3Dliterature + do/use=3Dread
>don't you think the reading was first and literature then, so shouldn't
>'read' be the earier,base/basic form;

Well what would you read if there were no literature?  Oh, and by literatu=
I don't mean literature as in the English sense of the word, I mean ANYTHI=
that is written or read.

>of course it could be only one of the words for 'reading' which use is
>limited (ie. for reading literature :-) )
>and of course the original 'read' word might have been get out of use,
>'kyefe' takes it place...
>just think about it

I'm thinking :-)

>>kye + lye=3Dliterature + thing/example=3Ddocument
>>kyelye + ski=3Ddocument + diminuitive=3Dcard, note
>>kyelyeski + gle=3Dcard + intensify/special=3Dgreeting card
>>kyelye + mbe {this shortens to kyembe}=3Ddocument + big=3Dbook
>what was first document or the book

Hmmm..... I'm not sure.

>'kyembe'=3Dbig literature is better (of course in MY opinion)

That wouldn't make much sense in Eloshtan, just as it doesn't in English. =
have to say "big SAMPLE of literature"  which is what the "lye" does.  Of
course, since kyelyembe shortens to kyembe anyway, it cold just have an
uncertain etymology (either kye+mbe or kye+lye+mbe)

>>kyembe + gle=3Dbook + intensify/special=3Dbible
>>kyembe + hye=3Dbook +container=3Dslipcase
>>kyembe + nte=3Dbook +
>>kyembe + nti=3Dbook +
>>kyembe + ski=3D book + diminuitive=3Dbooklet, pamphlet
>that's only MY opinion, and it's nothing wrong in disagreeing, at least
>your conlang!

Thank you for your comments!!

>[log in to unmask]