Hm, that’s a good point, I’ve changed my opinion about this case.
When I wrote my comment, I was thinking primarily of words that share a common prefix or suffix, which tends to imply that they refer to things that share the same category but are not the same thing. “English” and “Spanish”, for example.
But yeah, “diyer” is too close to “die” to be easily distinguishable. Maybe “rubemond”?
But yeah, “diyer” is too close to “die” to be easily distinguishable. Maybe “rubemond”?
I could see the argument for that, provided we also had saphmonds, emmonds etc… Otherwise you run the risk of claiming a special connection that doesn’t exist.
Hm, that’s a good point, I’ve changed my opinion about this case.
When I wrote my comment, I was thinking primarily of words that share a common prefix or suffix, which tends to imply that they refer to things that share the same category but are not the same thing. “English” and “Spanish”, for example.
But yeah, “diyer” is too close to “die” to be easily distinguishable. Maybe “rubemond”?
I could see the argument for that, provided we also had saphmonds, emmonds etc… Otherwise you run the risk of claiming a special connection that doesn’t exist.
We would also need to find a different word for almonds.