Wow, this is not where I thought this thread was going.

After I read the responses that came after mine I was starting to think that I must be completely stupid, or at the very least uneducated. Then when I got to the word "lacrimosious" I realized what was happening.

To the topic of the thread: Etymologies seldom matter when it comes to finding the modern meaning of a word. Dominus may derive from something about a house, but the current meaning of the word doesn't contain the notion of a house. So, if translating to Esperanto, or any other language, I would try to translate its meaning not its etymology. Hence, I wouldn't use domestro for that.

On the other hand, knowing the etymology of a word can give us insight into the different perspective that ancient people have had about the nature of, in this example, God. For example, el, as mentioned, comes from aleph lamed, the pictographic symbols of an ox's head, the symbol of strength and power, followed by a shepherd's staff, the symbol of leadership. Thus, ancient Israelites probably didn't think about God as modern people do, but instead as a powerful leader.

Jewish law has dealt with practically everything under the sun and it evolves all the time to deal with new situations.

Pixels arranged into words on a screen are not considered writing, the main issue with "writing" things on a screen is that someone may print out the text into hard copy.

gregorynacu:Wow, this is not where I thought this thread was going.

After I read the responses that came after mine I was starting to think that I must be completely stupid, or at the very least uneducated. Then when I got to the word "lacrimosious" I realized what was happening.

No, sir, I found your input to be to the point and well-spoken. If further posts on my part led you to doubt yourself, well, mea culpa. I am the learner here, anyway, and hope to have others find me teachable.

To the topic of the thread: Etymologies seldom matter when it comes to finding the modern meaning of a word. Dominus may derive from something about a house, but the current meaning of the word doesn't contain the notion of a house. So, if translating to Esperanto, or any other language, I would try to translate its meaning not its etymology. Hence, I wouldn't use domestro for that.

That is true, and, in fact, the etymological fallacy is a widely recognized trap one may fall into in the course of dialog.

On the other hand, knowing the etymology of a word can give us insight into the different perspective that ancient people have had about the nature of, in this example, God. For example, el, as mentioned, comes from aleph lamed, the pictographic symbols of an ox's head, the symbol of strength and power, followed by a shepherd's staff, the symbol of leadership. Thus, ancient Israelites probably didn't think about God as modern people do, but instead as a powerful leader.

Over the course of the centuries, a number of theologians in my tradition would call to mind the etymology of "Dominus", with an eye to the "world house/temple" motif that served as the prevailing cosmology of the Middle Ages. I think this rather serves to support your previous point than to diminish it; no one would need to remind his brother monks of the etymology were it already in the forefront of their minds. Of course, this has a point of contact with the idea of a "powerful leader", as well; a king is the head of a great national house, and historically, kings have often been generals as well.

erinja:Jewish law has dealt with practically everything under the sun and it evolves all the time to deal with new situations.

Pixels arranged into words on a screen are not considered writing, the main issue with "writing" things on a screen is that someone may print out the text into hard copy.

Ah, I'm glad to have learned that. It makes sense, too, now that I put my mind to it; there are gaps between each pixel, whereas each part of an ink-stroke has continuity with every other part. I suppose one could get pedantic and point out the gaps between electron shells and the nucleus of atoms. I might would then point at that there is still a continuity between the forces holding the whole together. And, I kid thee not, I do enjoy me some physics conversations--but that would represent a derailment that would make the Rio Grand Railroad Express #11 reel in incredulity.

erinja:Pixels arranged into words on a screen are not considered writing, the main issue with "writing" things on a screen is that someone may print out the text into hard copy.

delsydebothom:Ah, I'm glad to have learned that. It makes sense, too, now that I put my mind to it; there are gaps between each pixel, whereas each part of an ink-stroke has continuity with every other part.

Digital TrueType fonts are not aranged in pixel like Bitmap fonts. The main issue is how to ensure unadulterated authenticity of words. Thats why patents still are submitted on wood paper and digitized later into database.

In Finland children don't learn cursive handwriting anymore instead only block letter writing. There focus is on blind keyboard typing skills.

Huh?

No, there is no requirement to submit patent applications on paper. They are frequently submitted electronically, at least in the US. Depending on the applicant and depending on the examiner, the entire examination process can be paper-free.

Electronic words are not considered words not because of the non-continuity, but because of the intangibility and impermanence. An arrangement of light on a screen doesn't make a word, in Jewish law. In patent speak, we would say that it's a transitory medium.

spreecamper:Thats why patents still are submitted on wood paper and digitized later into database.

Okay, thats not correct. Sorry about. Further information can be found at epo.org.

It occurred to my mind, then, that "Domestro" might not be too intrusive a formation, as least for my own use. Still, it isn't something I'd want to get used to saying should it seem awkward to those on whom I'd otherwise be wont to inflict it. So, I put my questions: (1) Does the word make sense? (2) Is this sort of neologism welcome?

Yes, the word domestro makes sense, and as others have pointed out it has nothing to do with a deity.

There some restrictions on compound words.

Is it obvious what the word would refer to in the real world? If not, then best not to use it without an explanation.

[Example, in another thread here a poster was proposing virinismo as an alternative to feminismo. Since what the proposed word would exactly designate is not perfectly clear, this would need an explanation.]

Does the word (through usage) have a conventional meaning already? If so then using it to mean something else has to be done with care (ie this works only if context makes it clear that you are using it in a more literal way and not employing it in the conventional meaning.)

[Example, rideto is conventionally a smile. So trying to make it mean a chuckle (eta rido) needs context to force it out of the conventional meaning. By the way there aren't many of these words in Esperanto. And almost by definition these fossilised compounds, whose meaning is restricted to being narrower than suggested by the composing elements, are words of high usage frequency.)

Esperantists tend not to think of compound words as neologisms, as word-building is such a normal part of Esperanto, and tend to refer to something as a neologismo if it involves a new root not recorded in the dictionaries, or not yet in common use. So domestr(in)o doesn't qualify as a neologismo.