6. Commentary
The most important characteristic of the structure of Occidental is the endeavour to obtain natural forms, i.e., word forms identical to those of the great ethnic languages, and thus to secure immediate comprehensibility. The list of affixes of Occidental should be studied from that point of view. The rules of derivation and the variety of affixes formulated and selected by de Wahl serve to analyse existing forms rather than to derive autonomically new words from international roots and affixes. According to their definition, the suffixes -ario, -ero (-a), -ist, should be interchangeable in the sense of "profession," and we should be able to form dent/ero or dent/ist, and secret/isto, as the etymological origin is no longer common knowledge in the everyday use of the word. To avoid the pitfall of unfamiliar formations and the difficulty of synonymous suffixes, Ido and Novial have accepted a number of so-called international words in their complete form without deriving them [sekretari/o] and by using suffixes for one meaning only, -ist for occupation or profession [dent/isto, labor/isto]. This difficulty has been frankly admitted (Cosmoglotta 76) by the Wahl. He said that the majority of suffixes with their defined meaning of derivatives do not exist in Occidental in order that anybody may compose new words for general use, but rather so that one may understand the meaning of derivatives used in our standard literature. The good examples of our writers should be followed. Jespersen remarks in An International Language (Allen & Unwin) that the much praised immediate comprehensibility of Occidental mainly applies to people who are already familiar with two or three of the great European languages. The autonomists (Esperantists and Idists) maintain the generally recognized principle that an auxiliary language should make the compulsory study of different ethnic languages superfluous and should be easy for those who knew no other language but their mother-tongue.
According to its rules, Occidental uses the preposition in with the meaning "in, into" as a prefix. The prefix ín- indicates negation and is written, for the sake of differentiation, with the accent. Jespersen(Int. Language, p. 123) gives an example where both elements could easily be confused [ínscrit = unwritten, inscrit = written in]. A prefix which leads to such confusion is a badly selected one, particularly if we consider that the ethnic languages have a variety of negative prefixes out of which a better one might have been chosen. A selection of English negative prefixes will prove the point: mis- as in misunderstood, in- as in incomplete, un- as in unmistakable, im- as in impossible, il- as in illogical, ir- as in irregular, dis- as in distrust, de- as in decontrol, non- as in non-existent.
The suffix -tá expresses quality, while -té expresses collective totality [homan-i/té = humanity; homan-i/tá = human kindness]. Clearly the definition "quality" cannot express "kindness" as well. Only usage has attributed this sense to the word "humane". To derive homanitá logically with a qualitative suffix and the root hom- does not lead to the meaning it is supposed to have. This view is confirmed if we examine another root [soci/o = fellow, member; soci-e/té = society; soci-e/tá = society, social structure].