Hello,
I’m going over the Senecal disjointed prefixes that I could include in my DJS, and there are a lot of really interesting ones, except some give rise to homographs for a number of words, some being rather frequent. I’ve noticed:
-For disjointed D (déter-, détr-) : détremper – détromper (and all their conjugated forms) / détresse – détrousse / détresser – détrousser
-For disjointed DS (destr-, distr): distraction – destruction
-For disjointed ES (exter-, extr-, excl-): extrader – extruder / extrême – exclame / extérieur – exclure / extrusion – exclusion
-For disjointed KS (constr-) : construction, – constriction
Now I know that usually the context provided by the sentence containing such words leaves little room for ambiguity, however I often take notes that can be reduced to single, isolated words. This means that I need to find a clear way to distinguish distraction from destruction, or extérieur from exclure, or extrême from exclame (the other words being admittedly more rare). Any ideas on how to go about this?
I’m thinking of adding the first vowel in one of the two words in each pair, but this would be completely arbitrary and I might confuse myself not remembering which one should have its vowel included and which one shouldn’t. Also, adding the vowel probably diminishes the speed advantage that was initially sought by creating these prefixes.
I’d be happy to read your thoughts on this. Thanks.
And just now I was transcribing my psychology course in Gregg, and a distinction is made between the inter-individual level and the intra-individual level of psychological analysis. That’s one more problem…
In general, when you have one outline with two or more competing transcriptions, we use context. But in the case that you're mentioning, where context is not available, one writes the outline and add in longhand on top of the outline the letter that makes it different in parenthesis. For example, if you want to write distraction (instead of destruction), you would write the outline and above the outline you would write (i) in longhand.
For intra-, you write a disjoined n-a.
Thank you Carlos, the NA solution for intra makes perfect sense.
As for destr-/distr-, I’m afraid I may not always have in mind each homograph, so in the heat of the action if I need to write "distraction" I might forget to add the (i) simply because I won’t keep in mind that destruction is written the same way.
I’m thinking of getting rid of either destr- or distr- and keep the other to eliminate the ambiguity. I’m not sure which one though. I guess I could get rid destr- and write destruction/destructeur in full, since its verb form détruire doesn’t even fall in the destr- category, so the use of this prefix would be rather limited. Thus I would keep distr-, which would apply to distraire, distraction and all its derivatives, along with distribuer and district, although I’m starting to wonder if such a short list of words warrants using a dedicated prefix…
Regarding extérieur and exclure I’ll just create a brief form for extérieur.
You can just write an e-right s over the line for exclure itself (do not write the r).