Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:29:14 -0800 (PST)
From: "la .gusek." <gunnar_secret@hotmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <b049af39-6b35-4a2c-bce4-caaadc8eb624@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2fJpNLaUy9jzr6M0U_yuPsx1EbqhaHYWpX65Qt7eXKt3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d7de7081-3c90-4c1c-a1fd-2edb053bd72d@googlegroups.com>
 <fe19d271-0be6-4997-bcf7-5641a475dbae@googlegroups.com>
 <CAO7tK2fJpNLaUy9jzr6M0U_yuPsx1EbqhaHYWpX65Qt7eXKt3w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Let's create a word: Wasabi
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_874_1970721100.1416612554311"
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.0
X-Spam_score_int: -9
X-Spam_bar: -

------=_Part_874_1970721100.1416612554311
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_875_1269240019.1416612554311"

------=_Part_875_1269240019.1416612554311
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Thank you stevo, you've got a point there. Maybe it makes sense to use "v" 
as initial consonant!

Den fredagen den 21:e november 2014 kl. 20:19:17 UTC+1 skrev la durka:
>
> Are we so sure {stanruasabi} isn't a type-3 fu'ivla? The fu'ivla types are 
> just a convention anyway. I know the Book says the "tail" of a type-3 
> fu'ivla should start with a consonant, but a glide {ua} is _nearly_ a 
> consonant. Furthermore, syllable analysis (using camxes) gives us 
> {sta,nr,ua,sa,bi} which has that telltale consonantal syllable.
>
> So I say {stanruasabi} is type-3 and fine. What do you think?
>
> mu'o mi'e la durkavore
>

I say it's problematic and gray enough to motivate the addition of an 
initial consonant, but maybe I should rethink. "vlatai" does classify it as 
fu'ivla stage-4 though, and can't decompose it into stem and loan word (as 
a stage-3). This to me is troublesome. It seems odd to end up with a 
technical stage-4 that has the form of a stage-3. Either you make a stage-3 
properly, or you make a short stage-4.

Den fredagen den 21:e november 2014 kl. 23:05:53 UTC+1 skrev xorxes:
>
>
> As you say, it's just a conventional name, nothing really hinges on that. 
> I agree it makes sense to include such things among type-3. But personally 
> I'd go with a full type-4, maybe "uaxsabi".
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>

Okay, again maybe I should rethink. Any idea why "vlatai" wasn't programmed 
to take diphthongs into account this way?

Regarding your recommendation with a full stage-4, I don't agree with that 
line of thinking (but I get your point). Personally, I find it frustrating 
to see stage-4:s created directly and have trouble taking them "as 
seriously" as stage-3:s (I know I shouldn't react this way, but I do). I 
intuitively respect "sorpeka" much, much more (since it was created out of 
need and from an existing word), than stage-4:s with no pre-existing need 
and actual stage-3. I kind of want a stage-3 to exist before hand, and it's 
usage to *motivate* the creation of a stage-4. It feels like a "waste" of 
semantic space as well as unnecessary and risky behaviour (without 
guaranteeing syntactic non-decomposing).

I don't want to dismiss your view entirely, but I would feel a lot more 
comfortable with a stage-3 existing before it's shortened into a stage-4. 
Do you understand what I'm feeling? No offense to those who feel otherwise, 
truly! Maybe I'm too strict, I don't know...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

------=_Part_875_1269240019.1416612554311
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Thank you stevo, you've got a point there. Maybe it makes =
sense to use "v" as initial consonant!<br><br>Den fredagen den 21:e novembe=
r 2014 kl. 20:19:17 UTC+1 skrev la durka:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" =
style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-l=
eft: 1ex;"><div>Are
 we so sure {stanruasabi} isn't a type-3 fu'ivla? The fu'ivla types are=20
just a convention anyway. I know the Book says the "tail" of a type-3=20
fu'ivla should start with a consonant, but a glide {ua} is _nearly_ a=20
consonant. Furthermore, syllable analysis (using camxes) gives us=20
{sta,nr,ua,sa,bi} which has that telltale consonantal syllable.<br><br>So I=
 say {stanruasabi} is type-3 and fine. What do you think?<br><br>mu'o mi'e =
la durkavore<br></div></blockquote><br>I say it's problematic and gray enou=
gh to motivate the addition of an initial consonant, but maybe I should ret=
hink. "vlatai" does classify it as fu'ivla stage-4 though, and can't decomp=
ose it into stem and loan word (as a stage-3). This to me is troublesome. I=
t seems odd to end up with a technical stage-4 that has the form of a stage=
-3. Either you make a stage-3 properly, or you make a short stage-4.<br><br=
>Den fredagen den 21:e november 2014 kl. 23:05:53 UTC+1 skrev xorxes:<block=
quote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-le=
ft: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><div>As you say, it's just a conventional name, nothing re=
ally hinges on that. I agree it makes sense to include such things among ty=
pe-3. But personally I'd go with a full type-4, maybe "uaxsabi".</div><div>=
<br></div><div>mu'o mi'e xorxes</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><b=
r>Okay, again maybe I should rethink. Any idea why "vlatai" wasn't programm=
ed to take diphthongs into account this way?<br><br>Regarding your recommen=
dation with a full stage-4, I don't agree with that line of thinking (but I=
 get your point). Personally, I find it frustrating to see stage-4:s create=
d directly and have trouble taking them "as seriously" as stage-3:s (I know=
 I shouldn't react this way, but I do). I intuitively respect "sorpeka" muc=
h, much more (since it was created out of need and from an existing word), =
than stage-4:s with no pre-existing need and actual stage-3. I kind of want=
 a stage-3 to exist before hand, and it's usage to <i>motivate</i> the crea=
tion of a stage-4. It feels like a "waste" of semantic space as well as unn=
ecessary and risky behaviour (without guaranteeing syntactic non-decomposin=
g).<br><br>I don't want to dismiss your view entirely, but I would feel a l=
ot more comfortable with a stage-3 existing before it's shortened into a st=
age-4. Do you understand what I'm feeling? No offense to those who feel oth=
erwise, truly! Maybe I'm too strict, I don't know...<br></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

------=_Part_875_1269240019.1416612554311--
------=_Part_874_1970721100.1416612554311--