I know that -eg means "very much so", "big", etc., and -et is the opposite of -eg. That's not the problem. I was thinking of the use of mal- in words with those affixes and I got to thinking of what that could mean.

I can probably explain this better with examples than with sentences, so:

Suppose we're talking about how good something is. From bad to good, would the spectrum be

MalbonETa-Malbona-MalbonEGa-Boneta-Bona-Bonega

Or

MalbonEGa-Malbona-MalbonETa, etc.?

I think it would be the latter, but I'm not really sure.

Thanks.

Jes, the latter is the correct scale.

You can probably see it more clearly if you think that:

malbonega = ege malbona
malboneta = ete malbona
boneta = ete bona
bonega = ege bona

Regards,

Daniel

NothingHere:I know that -eg means "very much so", "big", etc., and -et is the opposite of -eg. That's not the problem. I was thinking of the use of mal- in words with those affixes and I got to thinking of what that could mean.

I can probably explain this better with examples than with sentences, so:

Suppose we're talking about how good something is. From bad to good, would the spectrum be

MalbonETa-Malbona-MalbonEGa-Boneta-Bona-Bonega

Or

MalbonEGa-Malbona-MalbonETa, etc.?

I think it would be the latter, but I'm not really sure.

Thanks.

Thanks. I was pretty sure it was the second one, but it's always good to be sure.

Also, thanks danielcg, that example made it even clearer.

Normally, "ega" and "eta" mean "great/big" and "small/tiny". But, combined with something, they act as an intensifier and, erm, unintensifier respectively.

Thus "bonega" = greatly good, "boneta" alright, "bonetega" = you wouldn't use this but "extremely alright" (it's VERY averagely good), and "bonegeta", sorta awesome.

The last two would only ever be used jokingly though, you'd never use them seriously since they're sort of silly. But they demonstrate the way et and eg modify words well.

Am I the only person who originally read it as "malbonegmalbonmalbonetbonetbonbonega"?

I read the hyphens with no problem. I mean, I read /red/ them in the past and I read /rid/ them now. (Who had the bright idea that two words equally written would be pronounced differently and would have different meanings?)

Perhaps its author edited the message after he saw the lack of hyphens.

Regards,

Daniel

ceigered:
Am I the only person who originally read it as "malbonegmalbonmalbonetbonetbonbonega"?

Oh no, it's no problem, I'm just a bit tired so I misunderstood it (I don't think there's a better way of putting it anyway).

About read/read (erm, which one's which? ):
The original form (well, not Old English, but Middle English) would have been something like "readen", with "read-" as the present tense and "readed" as the past tense (or something like that).

The problem arises quite often though that verbs ending with t/d in a certain time in the development of English have the past tense part fuse with them. A good example would be this:
let, leted /let, let't/
read, readed /re:d, re:d'd/
->
let, let /let, let:/
read, read /re:d, red:/ (the gemination of the final consonant makes the vowel short
->
simply let and read (/ri:d/, /re:d/ - gemination does not exist except across word boundaries in English.

The reason for the vowel change is because English vowels, like many germanic parallels, tend to be shortened before historic consonant gemination or consonant clusters. So, "feel" but "felt". But vowels that were already short don't have this effect. Today because of the loss of gemination and new catalysts emerging which make new long vowels, the system is messed up. However because English's orthography system is not in line with the other western germanic languages it makes it hard to figure out what's happening in comparison to them.

(Also on the topic - lend -> lent because voiced "n" clusters (either n or nd) historically had a habit of merging with the past tense marker and becoming "nt", thus earnt, learnt, lent, bent, etc. Because of this, and the above, something like "want" doesn't really change in the past tense).

(Also, about read/read, did you also know there's a verb "redd"? It also has "redd" as its past tense, but can have "redded" because it's obscure enough for people not to worry about whether it's correct or not).

EDIT: Also to add to the confusion, there's "rede", "to advise/counsel/help", which has "redd" as its past tense - this is where "read" originally came from (long e/ee is equal to ea as far as middle english was concerned)

Wow! That's what I call an explanation. Unfortunatly, much more than I can chew. But really thanks, Ceigered.

Daniel

ceigered:Oh no, it's no problem, I'm just a bit tired so I misunderstood it (I don't think there's a better way of putting it anyway).

About read/read (erm, which one's which? ):
The original form (well, not Old English, but Middle English) would have been something like "readen", with "read-" as the present tense and "readed" as the past tense (or something like that).

The problem arises quite often though that verbs ending with t/d in a certain time in the development of English have the past tense part fuse with them. A good example would be this:
let, leted /let, let't/
read, readed /re:d, re:d'd/
->
let, let /let, let:/
read, read /re:d, red:/ (the gemination of the final consonant makes the vowel short
->
simply let and read (/ri:d/, /re:d/ - gemination does not exist except across word boundaries in English.

The reason for the vowel change is because English vowels, like many germanic parallels, tend to be shortened before historic consonant gemination or consonant clusters. So, "feel" but "felt". But vowels that were already short don't have this effect. Today because of the loss of gemination and new catalysts emerging which make new long vowels, the system is messed up. However because English's orthography system is not in line with the other western germanic languages it makes it hard to figure out what's happening in comparison to them.

(Also on the topic - lend -> lent because voiced "n" clusters (either n or nd) historically had a habit of merging with the past tense marker and becoming "nt", thus earnt, learnt, lent, bent, etc. Because of this, and the above, something like "want" doesn't really change in the past tense).

(Also, about read/read, did you also know there's a verb "redd"? It also has "redd" as its past tense, but can have "redded" because it's obscure enough for people not to worry about whether it's correct or not).

EDIT: Also to add to the confusion, there's "rede", "to advise/counsel/help", which has "redd" as its past tense - this is where "read" originally came from (long e/ee is equal to ea as far as middle english was concerned)

Very interesting! I just learned two new English words

ceigered:Oh no, it's no problem, I'm just a bit tired so I misunderstood it (I don't think there's a better way of putting it anyway).

About read/read (erm, which one's which? ):
The original form (well, not Old English, but Middle English) would have been something like "readen", with "read-" as the present tense and "readed" as the past tense (or something like that).

The problem arises quite often though that verbs ending with t/d in a certain time in the development of English have the past tense part fuse with them. A good example would be this:
let, leted /let, let't/
read, readed /re:d, re:d'd/
->
let, let /let, let:/
read, read /re:d, red:/ (the gemination of the final consonant makes the vowel short
->
simply let and read (/ri:d/, /re:d/ - gemination does not exist except across word boundaries in English.

The reason for the vowel change is because English vowels, like many germanic parallels, tend to be shortened before historic consonant gemination or consonant clusters. So, "feel" but "felt". But vowels that were already short don't have this effect. Today because of the loss of gemination and new catalysts emerging which make new long vowels, the system is messed up. However because English's orthography system is not in line with the other western germanic languages it makes it hard to figure out what's happening in comparison to them.

(Also on the topic - lend -> lent because voiced "n" clusters (either n or nd) historically had a habit of merging with the past tense marker and becoming "nt", thus earnt, learnt, lent, bent, etc. Because of this, and the above, something like "want" doesn't really change in the past tense).

(Also, about read/read, did you also know there's a verb "redd"? It also has "redd" as its past tense, but can have "redded" because it's obscure enough for people not to worry about whether it's correct or not).

EDIT: Also to add to the confusion, there's "rede", "to advise/counsel/help", which has "redd" as its past tense - this is where "read" originally came from (long e/ee is equal to ea as far as middle english was concerned)

Haha sorry - a more simpler version:

Because the -ed fused with the d at the end of the word, it made the "e" sound shorter when the "dd" consonant gemination disappeared, but left the spelling intact.

That's it in a nutshell lol, English letters of similar qualities tend to morph into one another while affecting all the sounds around them!

Also, I have one more related question: I often include -eg and -et in verbs(i.e. Ŝategas, etc.). Is that acceptable, or have I been doing things totally wrong?