> [mailto:sasxsek@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Marjanovic

> > sapa = to be known
> > sapare = that which is known > knowledge, fact
> > sapibe = that which comes to know > learner, student
> > sap(er)i = knowing
> > sapari = known
> > sapo = manifestation of knowledge > information, facts
> > sape = one who knows
> > sapisi = knowing a lot > wise, knowledgeable
> > sapimi = knowing little > ignorant
> > sapise = one who knows a lot > wise one
> > sapibuk = institution for learning > school
> > sapik = knowledge (in the general sense)
>
> I know it's... very late for that, but may I suggest a more isolating
> approach? For example, making the agentive suffix identical to the root for
> "person/people" or replacing it by that word altogether, the causative
> suffix by "make" or "cause" or suchlike, the augmentative by "big" and the
> diminutive by "small"? In other words, if "one who knows a lot" can be a
> "much-know-man", why shouldn't they be?


That was considered but these features are too common, and I wanted to keep the
syllable count down so I used a system of short suffixes. An agent may not be a
"person", it could be an animal or even a thing, especially when applied to
statives (saf=white; safe=something that is white, "white one"). And just
because a "person" is attached to a word, doesn't make him the agent. Would
"attack-person" be the attacker or the victim of the attack? This way the roles
are always clear. Causing, becoming and the passive are an important part of
the derivative system because the help reduce the need for lexical roots. The
suffixes "-is" and "-im" indicate a level of magnitude which I wouldn't want to
confuse with physical size. The only part of the system I hesitated on, were the
sex endings. Originally I planned on just adjectives for "male" and "female"
but needed a shorter way to mark sex which is helpful for animal names where
it's often important.

One of the nice things about E-o is its word-building system with the suffixes
so I decided to make something similar but simpler because E-o's system has too
much semantic overlap. And unlike E-o, the S:S: affixes are not standalone
words.