Re: Group Conlang (was: Re: a Conlang, created by the group?)

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.


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"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
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

=0D