Antonio Fonseca | Re: [LFN] Re: Suffix and affix
- Autor: Antonio Fonseca (“acrfonseca”)
- Tema: Re: [LFN] Re: Suffix and affix
- Data: 2004-09-02 14:44
- Mesaje: 725 (a supra, presedente, seguente)
Rio, 2/09/04 Hi, George, Thanks for the explanation and understanding. So, I will maintain the goal of using only the basic suffixes/affixes for the daily communication, and the other for technical terms. this seems fair to me. I would like to suggest to put a remark before this suffixes/ affixes and other stuff indicating to avoid use them but only for technical terms and special situations. In this case, I would maintain my remark for "malformada", suggested by Leon. We already have "non", so "nonformada" would be the right choice . Best Regards, Antonio ===================== received message ========================================= >Hi, Antonio. > >The list of technical affixes is not new -- it was there from the >beginning. It is intended not for "ordinary" communications, but for >the consistent development of technical terminology, such as medical >terms, scientific vocabulary, etc. LFN really has two jobs, which don't >always go together easily: one is to be a very simple, easy to learn >language for daily communication; the other is to provide a means of >communicating technical information internationally. > >I do not believe we need more affixes, in fact, in addition to the 20 >original ones, for daily comunication. In fact, I only reluctantly >included ones such as -in, -os, and -al, which can also be easily >communicated with como, plen, and de. > >My best, > >George > >Antonio Fonseca wrote: > > > Rio, 01/09/04 > > > > Sorry for the English. > > If I remember well, the first time I read the list of suffixes and > > affixes established for LFN, it was a short list with very few option. > > A modest one, but enough for the beginning. > > I already have thought in proposing some, few, more, but I avoid it, > > because it is too early. > > Just now I have got an eye on the list, and, for my surprise, the list > > is now, very, very long. > > I have realized from the recent discussions among us that one goal > > would be to maintain the LFN's lexicon as short as possible. > > So, why so much option? why so much redundancies? > > It seems me that a good part of a Greek dictionaire was translated > > into LFN :) > > I think that we have to have enough options in words, suffixes, > > affixes, etc., in order to have a language clear and precis, but not > > to inflate the tongue without need. > > George, excuse me about this issue, may be it would not my business, > > but in this three/four months of contact and study I start to like and > > appreciate LFN and I cannot understand this change. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Antonio Fonseca > > > > Antonio Carlos Rodrigues da Fonseca > > acrfonseca@... > > Cel: 021 9107 2430 > > Antonio C.R. da Fonseca acrfonseca@... ---------- --- Mensagem livre de virus Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.749 / Virus Database: 501 - Release Date: 01/09/04 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]