Redundancy: The 2 Words for "Because"

[CaptainBeefheart]

There are three words that come up when you put "for" in the translator:

mido [For]
solfa [Because, for]
mirefafa [For, because]

These seemed redundant so I did some digging into Sudre's original French translations.

Mido means "pour."

1. for (when followed by a noun or pronoun)
J'ai un cadeau pour toi.
I've got a gift for you.
2. to (when followed by a verb in the infinitive)
Je veux chanter pour te faire revenir.
I want to sing to make you come back.

Solfa means "parce que."

1. because

Mirefafa means "car."

1. as, since, because, for
J’ai ouvert mon parapluie car il pleuvait.
I opened my umbrella because it was raining.

Mido's meaning is distinct. The same can't be said for solfa and mirefafa. "Parce que" and "car" both translate to "because." Their only difference lies in how they're used; "car" is more formal and can only be used to connect two independent clauses. "Parce que" can be used anywhere "car" can. This seems to go against Solresol's principle of suppressing synonyms. Why have two words when one of those words can be used in the same place as the other? I guess Sudre just overlooked it.

What do you guys think? Should it stay as is? Or should one of them be changed?

[nan0s7]

Mido's meaning is distinct. The same can't be said for solfa and mirefafa. "Parce que" and "car" both translate to "because." Their only difference lies in how they're used; "car" is more formal and can only be used to connect two independent clauses. "Parce que" can be used anywhere "car" can.

You'd be correct there! In fact, according to the most recent document on Solresol (Theorie & Pratique), "solfa" is also translated as "car". So it seems there is no real distinction between solfa and mirefafa at all, as far as we know.

This seems to go against Solresol's principle of suppressing synonyms. Why have two words when one of those words can be used in the same place as the other? I guess Sudre just overlooked it.

There are a few words like this. I believe they're simply the result of the language being slightly unfinished in some areas. However, in the 1800's there may have been a stronger distinction with formality. Some guides say there is a proper difference (parce que = cause, car = justification) though.

What do you guys think? Should it stay as is? Or should one of them be changed?

Eventually it could be changed to allow for more words that could be of more use, but for now I think we'll keep it the way it is. We don't even know for sure what words are missing from the language.