"Donald J. HARLOW" wrote: > You should go to the author of this passage -- Martin Lavalee, I > believe -- for an explanation. I am assuming that this means the > same as "usabil pro to". Occidental's syntactic structure is > somewhat less flexible than that of some (ahem!) other languages > because of its lack of POS marking. More disinformation from a biased-against-Occidental source. The "to" means just the demonstrative "that", and isn't used nearly as much as "ti = this". So, "usabil pro to" means "usable for that", a rather awkward phrase but understandable. The 100 short grammatical words of any language must be learned, though OCC's are certainly much more recognizable than EO's. Of course OCC *does* have the part-of-speech marking that I like so much in Ido, but it is optional. One can generally add -e or -es to mark singular/plural epicene nouns, and use -i, -al, or -ic to mark adjectives. But the tendency is for nouns to shed unnecessary baggage, so -e often drops. What ruins Interlingua for me is the difficulty of easily distinguishing adjectives from nouns; no problem in OCC. Like nearly every other natural language in the world, OCC uses different affixes to mark the multiple varieties of adjective and noun that a naive understanding of grammar lumps together. Linguists agree there are more than 5 POS.