I have this Esperanto-English dictionary. It lists the words by their roots, and then gives the english meaning. So, in decideing to look "outside" the Cos. jurnales, and Occidental grammars, etc. I decided to look for myself strictly at Esperanto books alone. So, here's one thing I have found. Esperanto does not have some common international affixes, at least, not in the Teach Yourself Esperanto English dictionary which lists 94 affixes, plus some other kinds of endings. So, from my perspective of simplicity, I looked up the word universe. It is univers/o. The root shown as univers. One root. Then I looked up the word universal. It is universal/o. The root shown is universal. A second root. Then I looked up the word university. It is universitat/o. The root shown is universitat. A third root. From Esperanto-English Dictionary, p. 157, TY Books, 1969. Now, here's the tricky part, which folks don't want to see. This is a complication, not a simplification. How, you say. Well, Esperanto is supposed to be easier to learn than Occ. Right? So, for romance linguists or non-romance linguists, it doesn't matter. For in Esperanto you must learn THREE roots plus all the affixes to use with them. That means 3X's a potential 45-94+ words. Of course, I know it would be fewer than that, but whatever it is, it is three times what is necessary. Now, in occidental how many roots must you learn to create these three words? Would you believe ONE. Of course, we all know this doesn't matter, because "Esperanto is easier to learn faster". But, think about the poor Oriental. In Occidental he/she only has to learn ONE root, but in Esperanto he/she has to learn THREE. That's twice the effort. And, this is only one concept out of thousands. So, by learning ONE root ,UNIVERS, the Oriental can easily form the above words easier than with Esperanto. And, remember, this is only one example. univers/o univers/al univers/ita' univers/al/ita' univers/al/isar Of course, if you are only learning one word, three roots isn't bad. But, multiply this effort by the number of extra roots required by Esperanto over the fewer required by Occidental. I say, one is easier than three. But, of course, we must remember that only the educated can learn one root, and the uneducated street people only need three for the same job. Here is another simple example: number Esperanto: numer/o one root numer numeral/o a second root numerator/o a third root Occidental: numer/e one root numer/al same root numer/ator same root numer/os same root e/numer/ar same root etc. Esp. needs three roots times a potential 94+ affixes. Occ needs one root plus the affixes. Now, I don't know about you, but if I am an Oriental, etc. I would want the easiest to learn. Would I rather learn 94+ affixes and two, and three roots for the same thing, or: Learn an equal amount of affixes and one root? And, with affixes that are in use already in the major languages of the West as an added benefit, or learn affixes that are used in no other language. For, if I learn the already in use affixes, then I can later figure out the meanings easily of words in other Western languages, which I couldn't do if I learned the 94+ affixes of Esp. At least, that's how I see it. I'd rather take the easy road used by "erudites". Which when properly translated means "people who take the easiest route for the most people possible". Con grand joya, Bob, x+O~ P.S. Please don't stop here, go to the library and get an Esperanto dictionary, preferably the biggest one you can get, and count the extra roots you have to learn for one concept. Then realize that that often doubles and triples your effort with the 94+ affixes.