From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Jan 07 17:46:48 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 07 Jan 2006 17:46:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1EvPdd-0003IQ-K5 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 07 Jan 2006 17:46:29 -0800 Received: from eastrmmtao05.cox.net ([68.230.240.34]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1EvPdb-0003II-2U for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 07 Jan 2006 17:46:29 -0800 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (really [24.250.99.39]) by eastrmmtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060108014616.PNXP14098.eastrmmtao05.cox.net@[127.0.0.1]> for ; Sat, 7 Jan 2006 20:46:16 -0500 Message-ID: <43C06EED.5010501@lojban.org> Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 20:46:21 -0500 From: Bob LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: stage 1 and 2 non-fu'ivla References: <20060105063129.GY3931@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <925d17560601050431i1eb4186bx69847bbda3144d4e@mail.gmail.com> <43BDAC35.6070505@lojban.org> <925d17560601051750x787d5026p6d3b094271b257a3@mail.gmail.com> <43BDD896.4080305@lojban.org> <925d17560601060450xd31451al5cdb7ea581c1d108@mail.gmail.com> <43BEE1C5.60506@lojban.org> <925d17560601061811i6d1462e8g793c84ec0e7eb764@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <925d17560601061811i6d1462e8g793c84ec0e7eb764@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11013 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Jorge Llambías wrote: > What does bother me a bit is not knowing whether {la'o} is only > meant to be used with proper names, as the ma'oste suggests, > or whether it is for borrowing common nouns (and perhaps even > adjectives and verbs?), as the CLL example and the fact that it > is called "stage 1 fu'ivla" suggests, or both (which is a bit incongruous). la'o was created specifically to convert Linnean binomials (using la'o or mela'o as needed) and proper names which when Lojbanized are either unrecognizable, or lose some critical meaning or distinctness implicit in the original spelling. mela'o usage is strictly speaking the "stage one fu'ivla" label, given that I think that the brivla is considered basic to Lojban. (But since sumti are arguably also basic, and can exist in standalone utterances, a bare sumti using la'o is arguably also a borrowing.) Not knowing where we stand these days on name morphology, the Russian city of Pskom would cause be to use la'o in nonce usage rather than risk making an illegal name. I remember long debates on how to Lojbanize the names for Albania and Hungary - and I wouldn't try to Lojbanize the name of Klingon (from the Klingon), and expect anyone to recognize it. In more common names, the English names "John", "Jan", "Jane", and "Jen" are so packed that Lojbanization loses distinctness. if there were a group of 4 people with those English names, and I wanted to refer to one of them, with it being critical that the correct one be identified, I would use la'o. --------- But in the original reasoning, my design posed the stages of borrowing as this: for a first nonce of a strange name or word that didn't Lojbanize trivially, a fluent speaker would tend to simply quote the non-Lojban word, using me to make it a selbri. The second stage would be to Lojbanize it, but given the lack of place structure for a nonce Lojbanization, might best Lojbanize it as a name, again using me to make it a selbri. If the word was to be used multiple times, and it was plausible that a real brivla place structure would develop, then we would go to the trouble of making a stage 3 fu'ivla (families of similar words having the same default place structure might skip stage 1 and/or 2). Only a word of demonstrated high frequency usage would shed the fronted affix and have a type 4 fu'ivla made, and these would never be made as nonce usages. This concept was based on a certain version of "me" which may or may not still work (since I don't clearly know where "me" stands these days in usage). lojbab To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.