• AlataOrange@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    The prefix Allo just means other, so when you have a pair of things the other one will normally become Allo-thing. Because we don’t make words the culturally accepted default position until there is something to contrast it with, most instances of Allo will describe the culturally accepted default.

    Aromantic - Alloromantic

    Asexual - Allosexual

    Autistic - Allistic

    • pbbananaman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      The prefix seems unnecessary and doesn’t even make sense with your last example. Why is it needed when the a- prefix works perfectly fine to contrast with the existing word as-is?

      • AlataOrange@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Aautistic doesn’t follow English’s rules for making words, we don’t do double vowl startings unless they are from very specific loan words that were popular enough to break the rules.

        Same was alloistic doesn’t work without a hyphen because when you have an o from a prefix and I from a suffix you need to drop one of them to make the word work.

        Basically English has illegal parrings of letters you can’t make and when they would come up you need to hyphen them together or drop letters.

        See eject, which is ex-ject but we can’t have xj so we drop the x.

        Or attend, which is ad-tend but we can’t do dt so make it tt instead.

        Wading should be wade-ing but ei, so we drop the e.

        Etc

        • pbbananaman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          I don’t think there needs to be a word that describes the negative of a condition. You just don’t need a descriptor at all. There’s no value add.

          Inject vs eject? Am I being trolled here?