Irina Rempt <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > I'm curious how other people come up with words - I know some people > who can sit down and *make* them, but if I try that I usually have to > throw away ninety-five percent of the result. I usually use this method. As a result, of course, I may take two or three minutes to create a single word. But the "correct" sounds tend to pop up easily. Also, JOEL MATTHEW PEARSON <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > My general strategy for making up words is to decide on a meaning > that needs to be lexicalised, and then go from there. Sometimes I make > do with a compound based on existing roots. Other times - especially > if the meaning is a 'basic' one which should by rights have its own > root - I just let the proper combination of sounds 'come to me'. As > a result, a lot of sound symbolism and onomatopoeia has crept into > Tokana. All my conlangs so far are quite symbolic and onomatopoeic, due to the method I use to create words. In Drasele'q, I at first tried to derive as much as possible from roots, but I didn't have enough of them and some derivations were pretty twisted. Then I decided I would try to create new words for all simple concepts. If something can be derived, I might create both, the derived word and the new one. I like to have synonims and words that apply to different registers (formal, informal, archaic, etc.). Some examples of s/o in Drasele'q (you may see it or not): _qoft_ "hard, rigid, strong" _kra`t_ "toad" _kri`k_ "frog" _i`r_ "smile" _mara'menden_ "to free-fall" _fkif_ "shaft, beam" _stonksen_ "to explode" _kruvden_ "to break, tear apart" --Pablo Flores * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Stewart's Law of Retroaction: It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.