RiotNrrd:Unfortunately, "mal" is definitely a prefix, and "et" is definitely a suffix, so a word like "etmala" (to distinguish between the two possible meaning combinations of these two affixes) is off the table - it is grammatically incorrect.

I've seen the word 'inseksa' before, which uses as '-in-' as a prefix. I think 'etmala' would just be a compound word formed from 'ete mala', which is technically correct...

egmala?

Oŝo-Jabe:you might use 'ega'...

"ega" is closer to 'extreme', more than just 'large' or 'big'. However I have noticed that in the spoken language the constructs with -eg- are becoming more and more coincident to the forms "tre X". For instance, I would say that "malvarme" means cold, "tre malvarme" very cold and "malvarmege" freezing cold, but it is getting more and more common to use "malvarmege" to mean just "very cold".

Fortunately we still have "treege malvarmege" if we really need that

"Estas frostige" or "Estas glacimalvarme", could be other ways of saying "it's freezing cold", without necessarily resorting to hairsplitting nuances about "tre" and "-eg".

Regards,

Daniel

mnlg:

Oŝo-Jabe:you might use 'ega'...

"ega" is closer to 'extreme', more than just 'large' or 'big'. However I have noticed that in the spoken language the constructs with -eg- are becoming more and more coincident to the forms "tre X". For instance, I would say that "malvarme" means cold, "tre malvarme" very cold and "malvarmege" freezing cold, but it is getting more and more common to use "malvarmege" to mean just "very cold".

Fortunately we still have "treege malvarmege" if we really need that

danielcg:"Estas frostige" or "Estas glacimalvarme", could be other ways of saying "it's freezing cold", without necessarily resorting to hairsplitting nuances about "tre" and "-eg".

You missed my point. "tre" and "-eg-" are not the same. However in the spoken language they are becoming the same. I can't say I am ecstatic about it. And that is my point.

It is common to use both prefixes and suffixes as independent roots, and there's nothing wrong with that. So "mala" is a fine adjective, "eta" is a fine adjective as well. Suffixes are occasionally used as prefixes, so long as it's understood that it's meant to be a compound word. This doesn't happen very frequently. So an et/mens/ulo (small-minded person) could be a person (ulo) with an eta menso. Esperanto distinguishes between being "etmensa" (small-minded) and a "menseto" (a small mind, but in a literal, not figurative sense). So etmensulo, in my opinion, doesn't mean the same as mensetulo. And certainly not mensuleto (a small person who has a mind).

So please don't take this as a blanket statement that it's ok to use prefixes and suffixes and suffixes as prefixes. In the case of "etmala", this doesn't even make sense. Being a little bit opposite?

In Esperanto, the order of affixes carries meaning. A "varmegulo" is a person who is very hot, and a "varmulego" is a hot person who is big.

Even if you wanted to freely mix prefixes and suffixes, and use them all in any place in the world, in the vast majority of cases, you will find that Esperanto prefixes don't lend themselves to being put after suffixes. The meanings turn out nonsensical. This is perhaps why some of these things are prefixes and not suffixes, but I have no specific knowledge about how those decisions were made.