Target the Klingon Bird of Prey. I can't Captain. Ili malvidigis sin (ie switched on the cloaking device).

Can you do something about this stain on my jeans. Mi aplikos solvaĵon, tio eble iom malvidigos ĝin (make it less noticeable).

So something can be malvidigebla or ne-malvidigebla. I would say that malvidigi estas ne-malhavebla vorto en via vorto-stoko.

sudanglo:Target the Klingon Bird of Prey. I can't Captain. Ili malvidigis sin (ie switched on the cloaking device).

Can you do something about this stain on my jeans. Mi aplikos solvaĵon, tio eble iom malvidigos ĝin (make it less noticeable).

So something can be malvidigebla or ne-malvidigebla. I would say that malvidigi estas ne-malhavebla vorto en via vorto-stoko.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble understanding the point you are trying to make. Do you refer to me not accepting malvidebla? But you used malvidigebla in your example, it's a different word. I like very much the word nemalhavebla that you threw in, it's a nice case to study. What do you think, to which parts of the entire word do mal- resp. ne- apply?

There isn't much use for malvidebla. I was just trying to illustrate that mal could be followed by vid in a useful word. Vidigi means show or allow to be seen, so malvidigi means hide from view.

Nehavebla means unobtainable Ne-malhavebla means you have to have it, can't do without out it. PMEG estas nemalhavebla konsultilo por la serioza Esperantisto.

Whether the analysis from the elements is strictly logical, I wouldn't like to say, but clearly you immediately spotted the meaning. I'd say that Esperanto compounding is pragmatic rather than mathematical.

nemalhavebla seems to come from french "indispensable"; the logical esperanto form would be "havenda".

Ne-malhavebla is a strong recommendation - something nemalhavebla is essential. Havenda is more imperative - mandatory compulsory.

Ekde 1998 la senmovigilo havendas por ĉiu nova aŭto.

La nemalhaveblaj ingrediencoj de la detektiva romano estas ...

Steering off topic now, but for me havenda is a "must have" that you maybe don't have yet but should get (like the newest album of what ever rock group), and nemalhavebla is something that you already have and could not possibly give away.
About nemalhavebla and the beautiful double negation there, am I right in thinking that "mal" applies to "hav" only, and that "ne" applies to "malhavebla"? That would make "malhavebla" translate as "dispensable".

Duko:Steering off topic now, but for me havenda is a "must have" that you maybe don't have yet but should get (like the newest album of what ever rock group), and nemalhavebla is something that you already have and could not possibly give away.
About nemalhavebla and the beautiful double negation there, am I right in thinking that "mal" applies to "hav" only, and that "ne" applies to "malhavebla"? That would make "malhavebla" translate as "dispensable".

I am of the opinion that each of the "actual" prefixes applies to the meaning of everything to its right. In this case "mal" applies to "havebla", and "ne" applies to "malhavebla". So we have a logical progression of "have-able" -> "un-have-able" -> "not-un-havae-ble", which to me conveys the aforementioned feeling that one already has this thing and cannot do without it.

I don't quite have the vortprovison necessary to think-up examples, but I propose that any word where this rule cannot be followed should be split into more words to be proper. I can foresee a lot of base roots being used as prefixes as falling under this category.

Maybe the exceptions in actual use come from common constructed words being used in constructions themselves, in which case the common/ubiquitous constructed word is treated as a single word always (no matter where it is in the new constructed word). Ekzemple, if "malbon" is used in a word which also uses the "mal" prefix.

Just my thoughts, does anyone agree?

Duko:Steering off topic now, but for me havenda is a "must have" that you maybe don't have yet but should get (like the newest album of what ever rock group), and nemalhavebla is something that you already have and could not possibly give away.

Mi samopinias. I think the same.

kasxperanto: About nemalhavebla and the beautiful double negation there, am I right in thinking that "mal" applies to "hav" only, and that "ne" applies to "malhavebla"? That would make "malhavebla" translate as "dispensable".

Mi ne certas. Mi emas pensi ke kaj "mal" kaj "ne" cxi tie aplikas al "havebla". Ili donas malsamajn signifojn ne pro siaj malsamaj analisoj sed pro si mem.
I am not sure. I am inklined to think that both "mal" and "ne" apply to "havebla". They give different meanings, not because of their different analyses, but by their own force. Is it not possible that "malhavebla" still can translates as "dispesnable"? "Nehavebla" is everything that one is not obliged to have, while "malhavebla" is only the most extreme part of those things.

kasperanto:
I am of the opinion that each of the "actual" prefixes applies to the meaning of everything to its right. In this case "mal" applies to "havebla", and "ne" applies to "malhavebla". So we have a logical progression of "have-able" -> "un-have-able" -> "not-un-havae-ble", which to me conveys the aforementioned feeling that one already has this thing and cannot do without it.

I don't quite have the vortprovison necessary to think-up examples, but I propose that any word where this rule cannot be followed should be split into more words to be proper. I can foresee a lot of base roots being used as prefixes as falling under this category.

Maybe the exceptions in actual use come from common constructed words being used in constructions themselves, in which case the common/ubiquitous constructed word is treated as a single word always (no matter where it is in the new constructed word). Ekzemple, if "malbon" is used in a word which also uses the "mal" prefix.

Just my thoughts, does anyone agree?

I am thinking along the same lines.