[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 03:04:17PM -0500, Alexander Browne wrote: > I don't like the idea having an opposite-forming word (that's one of > my least favorite features of Esperanto). I think opposites should > either be two different words or two different modifications of one > root. So I like your second idea, but not your first. > > One problem that might pop up, although probably less likely with your > second idea, is that one opposite in a pair of neutral words might > have negative connotations: (using my horrid esperanto) if 'bona' is > good and 'malbona' is bad, then is 'malgranda' the bad form of > 'granda'? Not literally, but it seems like one concept is prefered > over the other. I think the problem in Esperanto was having the "opposite" prefix be one usually associated with "bad". Lojban uses 'mal' (a combining form from "mabla") as a derogatory prefix, and 'tol' (a combining form from the cmavo "to'e") for "opposite". And since Ceqli is already focusing on using compounds for stuff, I see no reason not to use compounds to form opposites. But just like the male/female thing, even when appropriate compounds exist there can still be single predicates for opposites. 'Good' and 'bad' would be one place where this would be particularly helpful. Anything we do with predicates for opposites would do better than Lojban, though, which has a root word for "young" but not for "old", and for "foolish" but not for "smart", and a few other examples. -- Rob Speer