>>>>>I have almost forgotten about this. It's like a bug minefield - you employ workarounds without thinking, and only during refactoring you remember why are you always doing it this way and never that way ("ovako" and "onako"... "thisly" and "thatly").
>>>>
>>>>I don't see the big deal about it. If you ask, "What is this door made of?" and somebody replies, "Wood", then you know it's a wooden door. Doesn't seem like much of a work-around to me. So what if there is no question to which the only possible definitive answer is 'wooden'.
>>>
>>>Of course you don't see it - notice how many iterations it took me to explain what it was. You have always spoken the language without it, and well, I have too, for most of my time. It's become a second nature to speak using such workarounds. Just sometimes I let myself enjoy composing a sentence in my own language and then try to translate it, just for the effect. And trying to explain the frustration I encounter from time to time in the attempt, well, it's part of the experience. And who knows, some wrong way cross-pollination between the languages may still happen.
>>
>> I guess I'd need to see how it would improve the language without complicating it. As I indicated, I don't really see any use for it something like that when what we have seems perfectly adequate. The language is convoluted enough without making it even more so.
>
>The dilemma is the same as in the other cases where I was pointing out into cases of missing words in English: what is easier, to have one more word and to know its meaning, or to have one less word but to remember one more meaning for it and to remember how to know which meaning is it this time. Also, how to compose a sentence so that the word isn't understood by unintended meaning (which is a horrible problem when translating into English - sometime you have to drop three perfectly good candidate words and take a weakly usable fourth, just because the first three would primarily mean something else and not what the original says).
>

Hold on there Pancho. "What is this door made of?" is a perfectly good question for finding out what the door is made of. Why would I need another way to ask the same question just for the purpose of retrieving an adjective instead of a noun in the response? I can think of no possible liguistic need that it would serve.

>And "adequate" is just that...

Adequate: 1. sufficient for a specific requirement.

What do I need for this type of situation beyond "adequate"?