From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Dec  4 06:35:11 1995
Reply-To: BARRETO%VELAHF@ECCSA.TR.UNISYS.COM
Date: Mon Dec 4 06:35:11 1995
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: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
Message-ID: <ytFIWH5yoaC.A.E0F.ru0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

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.