Date:  Wed, 14 Jan 1998 04:43:37 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 04:33:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Message-Id: <199801140933.EAA05087@access5.digex.net>
To: sshoopak@unified.com
Subject: Re:  Brivla and Bridyvalsi
Cc: cowan@ccil.org
X-UIDL: c082db8612fab6844167f40eb089a804
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1127
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Jan 14 10:44:00 1998
X-From-Space-Address: -

>>From the "book":
>
>"Thus 'brivla', itself a lujvo built from the tanru 'bridi valsi', is
>the same lujvo as 'brivalsi',
>'bridyvla', and 'bridyvalsi', each using a different combination of
>rafsi."
>
>This presents an interesting situation.  Since the tanru is heard mostly
>as lujvo, would this be the case of internal creolization?  That is, it
>has "evolved" to being used mostly in its
>shortened form; understood as the concept represented, intuitively, and
>not as components of a tanru.  I cannot conceive of using the longer,
>almost classical sounding forms in a purely lojbanic context, even
>though it is permitted to do as such.
>
>--More--
>Would this imply natural assimilation of a new, "lojbanic" culture?  And
>how does this effect the "proof" of S-W?


Please ask on Lojban List - I am not linguisticly expert enough to even think 
I understand the ramifications of your question much less competent
enough to attempot to answer it %^).

Heck, this one might even be a ghood question for sci.lang, with suitable
references to our Web site for informal advertising purposes.  Or even
Linguist List.

lojbab