[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Mike Wright wrote: > Rex May - Baloo wrote: > >> Slowly updating correlatives. >> http://www.geocities.com/ceqli/Ceqcorrel.html >> When I'm done, I'll delete the Esperanto stuff. [...] > My feeling is that there is no logical need for special compounds with > <diq> and <pe>, since these, like all nouns, can be preceded by the > <X-sa> forms. It seems like an unnecessary complication. Why would we > prefer <kwadiq> to <kwasa diq>, or <sope> to <sosa pe>? Is there some > subtle difference in meaning between the elements of these pairs? Even > when we can translate <kulpe> as "everyone" and <kulsa pe> as "every > person", is there actually any difference in meaning between the two? > (I'm against trying to match every nuance of English.) > > Or, perhaps there is no need for the <X-sa> forms, and <kwa>, <ci>, > <kul>, and so on, should be able to compound with any noun? > > I just don't see the advantage of having both forms. I agree with Mike here. To me, it makes the most sense to be able to combine them with any nouns. -- Alexander Browne | alexbrowne@hidden.email Saint Paul, Minn., U.S.