Re: Group Conlang (was: Re: a Conlang, created by the group?)
|From:||Tom Wier <artabanos@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, October 14, 1998, 17:45|
Herman Miller wrote:
> I think I can accept the interchangeability of noun and verb roots if w=e
> can come up with a good scheme for relating the meanings of the various
> forms consistently. I don't want to end up with Esperanto where you hav=e to
> memorize that you "marteli" [hammer] with a "martelo" rather than a
> "martelilo", or English where "bite" can be either the act of biting or= the
> impression left by the teeth.
What you bring up here is a good question, but I think we must
remember that Esperanto was never intended to be a language
where words were _inter_derivable, but rather only derivable:
one way derivations. That may make it harder to learn, but it
certainly is not something that is _bad_ per se, only something
to be avoided. Esperanto is entirely consistent when you're
talking about each derivable element. The system works -- it's
just that the system is not complex enough to make it work among
its seperate entities, which were not designed for that purpose.
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
ICQ#: 4315704 AIM: Deuterotom
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
"Schlie=DFt den heil'gen Zirkel dichter,
Schw=F6rt bei diesem goldnen Wein,
Dem Gel=FCbde treu zu sein,
Schw=F6rt es bei dem Sternenrichter!"
- _Ode an die Freude_, J. F. von Schiller