From phma@ixazon.dynip.com Fri Dec 06 09:37:05 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 06 Dec 2002 09:37:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 208-150-110-21-adsl.precisionet.net ([208.150.110.21] helo=neofelis.ixazon.lan)
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 18KMPN-0007Q0-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 09:37:02 -0800
Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500)
	id B20993C47F; Fri,  6 Dec 2002 12:36:29 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@webjockey.net>
To: <lojban-list@lojban.org>
Subject: [lojban] Re: penguins, neologisms, cratylism (was: RE: penguins
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 12:36:25 -0500
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2]
References: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMCELJHAAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMCELJHAAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
X-Spamtrap: fesmri@ixazon.dynip.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <02120612362504.02354@neofelis>
X-archive-position: 3141
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: phma@webjockey.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

On Thursday 05 December 2002 18:58, And Rosta wrote:
> 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.

But if lo sfenisku is a penguin, what is lo nisku?

Between {sfeniku} and {sfenisu}, I think I prefer {sfenisu}, as there is some 
Greek root -sphenic which I think means "wedgelike" (I've actually seen 
"sphenic" only in "tribosphenic", which is a type of molar).

phma