AntaresDecerto
@Liis, Tell me if I am wrong, but it seems that, following that logic, you never have to use compound words. If you can simply make one up that follows the spelling rules of the language, then compound words will never be used unless someone decides they want to use them to make a word that doesn't yet have a translation. I would think that the more logical method would be to use compound words to form new words if the meaning is clear and unmistakable (i.e. you wouldn't want to use "Flying Weapon" for Bow, as that could mean many things), the word is not exceedingly long, and it follows orthographic rules. If a reasonable word can't easily be developed to follow these rules, then create a new one that follows orthography. If you can, give it a resemblance to other related words by using similar roots, or at the very least, would capture the "feel" of the word to a native speaker. That's much closer to how language evolves. "Lax" follows spelling rules, but that seems to be the only argument for its use. Any other legal, unused combination of letters would work just as well. Ultimately, I guess it doesn't matter all that much. There is already a word out there that is being used and I'll leave it alone. If, in my writing, I find that I need a word that doesn't yet exist, I'll submit a new one. If not, I won't. I'll just leave established words alone from now on.
AntaresDecerto
September 22, 2015 |
@Liis, Tell me if I am wrong, but it seems that, following that logic, you never have to use compound words. If you can simply make one up that follows the spelling rules of the language, then compound words will never be used unless someone decides they want to use them to make a word that doesn't yet have a translation. I would think that the more logical method would be to use compound words to form new words if the meaning is clear and unmistakable (i.e. you wouldn't want to use "Flying Weapon" for Bow, as that could mean many things), the word is not exceedingly long, and it follows orthographic rules. If a reasonable word can't easily be developed to follow these rules, then create a new one that follows orthography. If you can, give it a resemblance to other related words by using similar roots, or at the very least, would capture the "feel" of the word to a native speaker. That's much closer to how language evolves. "Lax" follows spelling rules, but that seems to be the only argument for its use. Any other legal, unused combination of letters would work just as well. Ultimately, I guess it doesn't matter all that much. There is already a word out there that is being used and I'll leave it alone. If, in my writing, I find that I need a word that doesn't yet exist, I'll submit a new one. If not, I won't. I'll just leave established words alone from now on. |
