Print

Print


Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote:
 
> [kut]>From comments on this list, by Robin Turner and/or Lojbab, IIRC, it
> seems that Interlingua and Occ are not comprehensible to any learned person.
 
I have learned that many "learned person(s)" are not learned in their own language. i.e.
They can use it but have no concept of the building blocks of their languages today. Thus,
they are unable to recognize even the simple roots within their own languages, much less
the same ones in Occidental.
 
It's an interesting revelation to me. Let me give you an example that applies to the
English speaker, but also equally well to some other languages.
Without going to a dictionary, how many folks know at sight the meaning of these "words"?
 
ab
able
abs
ac
acer
acid
acri
ad
ada
ade
af
ag
age
agi
ago
al
ali
allo
alter
amb
ambi
amphi
an
ana
ance
ancy
anni
annu
ant
ante
anthrop
anti
apo
ar
arch
ary
as
asis
aster
astro
at
ata
ate
aud
aus
aut
auto
be bene
bi
bin
bio
bon
calor
cap
capit
capt
cata
cause
cede
ceed
cep
cept
cess
chrom
chron
cian
cide
circ
circum
cise
civ
claim
clam
clud
clus
cognosc
con
coni
con
cord
corpor
cour
court
crea
cred
cub
cule
cumb
cus
cuse
ian
ible
ic
icle
il
ile
im
in
ine
intellect
intellig
inter
intra
intro
ion
ir
ish
ism
ist
ite
ity
ive
ize
nasc
nat
neo
ness
neur
non
nounc
nov
number
numer
nunci
plais
plu
plur
plus
pneuma
pneumon
pod
poly
potes
puls
punct
re
rect
recti
ri
ridi
risi
rog
roga
sang
sat
satis
scope
scrib
se
semi
sesqui
simil
sion
soph
tact
tain
tang
tra
tion
tui
tuit
ty
ultima
ure
vac
vert
vid
vulcan
 
These are all parts of the makeup of words used in English and other languages and
Occidental, and each has meaning(s) that help a person know what the word means from the
inside out. But, most "learned" folks just know the word by its memorized use. For
instance:
 
How many English speakers can "at sight" read this word?
 
SANGUISUGENT
 
I dare say, that word is not "at site" understandable to the majority of the English
speaking public, both British and American. But, if one knows his/her language they can
figure it out without a dictionary.
 
SANGUI (sanguis) -- Latin root = blood
SUG (sugere) -- Latin root = to suck
ENT -- suffix = that which
 
Occidental can be easily read, then, by the "learned" person who is "learned" in their own
language. This is why it only takes one language in the "occidental" realm to read and
understand Occidental, because it uses, in its case, all such roots/affixes that are common
to the largest group possible to start with. It is fals to claim a person has to know two
or more romance languages to read and understand it. What one needs, is to know and
understand their own "occidental" language first, and as a whole, we don't. You'd be
surprised, or maybe not, at the educators who are actively teaching in universities, etc.
today who don't know the meanings of most of the "words" listed above without going to a
grammar or dictionary. They have, like most of us, memorized the final word themselves and
have never spent time at all memorizing the core structure roots and affixes of their
mother tongue.
 
Cordialmen,
Bob, x+O~
 
P.S. You're not allowed to look in a dictionary, grammar or word building book of any kind.
So test yourself, do you know all of the above listed "at sight"? You should. The total
list is around 260, I just listed a few. Actually, every "learned" person should have all
260 memorized.