From: "Andrew Nowicki" <andrew@...>
Subject: Re: Improved (Short) Ygyde
> Adding more roots makes sense only if these roots are
> used frequently. I cannot think of any missing roots
> that would be used as often as the existing roots.
Some of the current roots don't have a whole lot of application. Right now
you have among the 180 most necessary word roots the following:
helix
torus
atom
fetus
zygote
genetic
elastic
repulsive
etc.
I don't think most people need these concepts very often. I think it's been
several years since I used the word "zygote", and I haven't needed "helix"
very often at all. I think a word like "wood" would be far more useful of a
root than "zygote".
> You really have to
> make at least a thousand compound words to get the
> feel for the new language.
I'm not so sure about that. In a philosophical language, one where words
are logically formed from simpler roots, you shouldn't have to define any
compound words at all - they should be naturally understandable.
> ME> As far as I can tell from what I've seen, logically
> ME> compounding words is the most important feature of Ygyde.
>
> True.
And that's what I'm talking about - that you should not have to _define_ any
compound words, that the list of roots should be enough.