[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Ciao! (Guess where I've been!) --- In ceqli@yahoogroups.com, Rex May - Baloo <rmay@m...> wrote: > I'm puzzling over a set of compounds and I'm afraid I may be importing > English peculiarities into Ceqli. > > val - worth, worthy > fey - can, able to > tan - tends to > bon - good > > Now, "kom" means 'eat', and "ciba" means 'this' > > Ciba komval - this is worth eating > Ciba kombon - this is good to eat > > Both of which describe something that is being eaten > > Now, > Ciba komfey - this is capable of eating > Ciba komtan - this tends to eat, is hungry. > > And these describe something that -does- the eating. > > Is this a flaw, or just the semantic requirements of val, tan, bon and fey? I think of it as the slightly flawed semantic requirements of those words. > > If the latter, the other roots can have the be- passive particle added to > change the meaning: I would favour active roots. However, a strength(!) of Ceqli is that it has conversion mechanisms like "be", so that the initial vocabulary doesn't have to be 'perfect'. Some semantic illogic and inconsistency will creep in despite your best efforts. > > Ciba komfey - This can eat. > Ciba bekomfey - This is edible (this can be eaten) > Ciba komtan - this tends to eat, is hungry > Ciba bekomtan - this tends to be eaten, is popular as a food. > > Final question - is the "bekomfey" form the way to go, or should I have an > ending that works like the English -able? I've already proposed 'fye,' as > sort of a reverse of 'fey,' with that meaning. Certainly keep the "be" form -- it is one of your most useful inventions. You could also have "fye", but I don't think it will be necessary. > > Go kanfey. I can read, am literate. > Da kanfye = Da bekanfey - It is readable, legible. > -- --Krawn