Charles wrote: > > "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" wrote: [big cut] > > The point being that English etymology is not nearly systematic enough to > > make "rules" based on that etymology. > > Well, we do have some rules, but we also break them. > This is a true linguistic universal, IINM. I use the word > "rule" in sense #1 of the Concise Oxford Dictionary: > [cut] Fine for native speakers, but in pedagogical terms, any "rule" which has dozens of exceptions isn't a useful rule, and often does more harm than good. English not only has a plethora of suffixes performing a few grammatical functions, it also has identical suffixes performing different functions. This confuses the hell out of foreign learners of English, and I imagine they would find Occidental equally perplexing. Even the most naturalistic auxlang needs to regularise its morphology (and spelling) to some extent, I think. co'o mi'e robin. co'o mi'e robin.