Return-Path: <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@BITMAIL.LSOFT.COM>
Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tMZ0q-0000ZUC; Mon, 4 Dec 95 13:24 EET
Message-Id: <m0tMZ0q-0000ZUC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id F6F848FF ; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 12:24:47 +0100
Date:         Mon, 4 Dec 1995 06:22:00 LCL
Reply-To:     BARRETO%VELAHF@ECCSA.TR.UNISYS.COM
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Paulo Barreto <BARRETO%VELAHF@ECCSA.TR.UNISYS.COM>
Subject:      Why "fu'ivla"?
X-To:         lojban%cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu@TRSVR.BITNET
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 727
Lines: 15

I really don't understand why this lujvo is being used to replace
"le'avla". If something is a "copy" word, it should have been "copied"
in some way. However, I haven't seen a single "fu'ivla" that has
been copied from the source language -- they are always adapted to
some extent, at least phonologically/orthographically, and most
frequently with the addition of a classifier prefix.

If "le'avla" doesn't reflect the concept well, why not a compound of
"mapti", or a gismu made in the same way as "cmavo" and "lujvo"?

co'o mi'e paulos.

    Paulo S. L. M. Barreto  --  Software Analyst  --  Unisys Brazil
    Standard disclaimer applies ("I do not speak for Unisys", etc.)
                       e'osai ko sarji la lojban.