Which is better Tom? To have a theory that can be relatively simply expressed and doesn't entail either exceptions or a labyrinthine account of the rules of word formation (such as the 60 pages in PAG), or subscribe to the dogma of the root class.

There is no way that you can make the actual usage of korekta and korekti fit with the idea that korekt is of a specific root class.

The fundamental error of the root class theorists is to start from the position that derivation is a simple combinatorial process (root + finajxo), with the (unique) grammatical class of the root determining the meaning.

If on the other hand you view derivation as a process based on the word rather than the root, life suddenly becomes much simpler. So derivation becomes take a word, knock off the ending and put in another ending, rather than take a root and add an ending.

Knowing the meaning of a word is not fraught with theoretical difficulties. Determining the meaning of a root launches us into some sort of fantasy land and removes us from the language as it is spoken. People do not talk in roots.

Mainly the meaning X-a, X-i, X-e, X-o, and other derivations will be consistent with the meaning of one of those words, but not always. Sometimes usage will establish (pragmatically) independent meanings of certain parts of speech, and pluformado will be based on one of those words or another.

Common sense or context will suffice to tell us which word the compound is derived from.

Sudanglo, don't you think that if this approach had been used to build the language that we'd now have hundreds of inconsistencies instead of the handful that we currently encounter?

Sudanglo, please open a new thread or go to one of the numerous old ones if you want to discuss root classes.

To me, vera stems from vero, meaning truth, so I'd say it means "of truth" or "truthfull". That's just my opinion. Although I have yet to encounter a case in which I need to use that word.

erinja:Korekta - if you want to be nitpicky, strictly it means "relating to corrections". People use it to mean "correct" (= without error) -- I consider that an error but you will hear it. I personally do not use "korekta" to mean "correct". I use "gxusta" to mean "correct".

The exams at Lernu! assert "korekte" if you fail to provide a faulty answer. | La ekzamenoj cxe Lernu! asertas na "korekte" se vi malsukcesas meti malgxustan respondon.

Yeah, I've never liked that usage. It's a holdover from one of the founders of our site. I am not sure whether it will survive to the relaunch or not.

I think the root of the problem is the form of the word itself, korekt-, which means korektita in the Romance languages, English, and everywhere else that borrowed the word from Latin, where it is the past passive of corrigere.

Lots of languages, when borrowing a word from another language, use the word in a way that would be agrammatical in the source language. Doesn’t make it easier for the learner, but that’s the hand we’ve been dealt. To willfully use korekta to mean ĝusta because it corresponds better to one’s own language usage — or to otherwise “sudanglicize” a language according to one’s own preferences (and denounce all grammarians from Zamenhoff on as “delusional” to boot) — is just so much Tower-of-Babel-climbing Humpty-Dumptyism:

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory’,” Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’”

“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that's all.”