From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Thu Dec 05 15:57:01 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:57:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.113])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 18K5rU-0003XE-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 15:56:57 -0800
Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-70-55.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.70.55])
	by lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A66293CF23
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Fri,  6 Dec 2002 00:56:23 +0100 (MET)
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
To: <lojban-list@lojban.org>
Subject: [lojban] penguins, neologisms, cratylism (was: RE: penguins 
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 23:58:34 -0000
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMCELJHAAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <20021205053717.GA69718@allusion.net>
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Importance: Normal
X-archive-position: 3094
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

Jordan:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 12:17:18AM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> > There isn't a gismu for penguin, but there is one for Antarctica,
> > dzipo. I don't know a good word for penguin. I've tried these:
> > sfenisku: meaningless lujvo. cipnrsfenisku is ok, but cumbersome
> > sfeniku or sfenisu: ok, but don't sound quite right bisycpi: not
> > all penguins live on ice, there are some as far north as
> > Galápagos zipcpi or zi'ocpi: ditto. There are other birds there as
> > well. zi'ocpi sounds like a nonexistent bird
>
> IMHO, none of
> the above suggestions are bad except "sfenisku" and the type 4s

I know why you think that; there are sound rational grounds.

But {sfenisku} was my favourite. Long-form fuhivla do indeed seem
too clunky, while lujvo can seem blandly homogeneous and lacking
in distinctiveness, especially in what one might call 'cratylism',
the property of form mystically embodying meaning. I've there's
one person whose judgement I'd trust on neologisms, it would be
Michael Helsem.

--And.