Print

Print


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.