[jbovlaste] Re: new word: prolijmo'a

[Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>]

I like that idea.  Similarly maybe a {kelta'o} is the basic idea of a game board of some kind but then you can expand as needed.  For instance a {kucycukykelta'o} for a tic-tac-toe board.

In coming up with that example, though, I realized something.  Most games will be made with fu'ivla.  Is it legal to make a lujvo from a rafsi + fu'ivla like {caxmatikelta'o} = chess board?

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 7:09 AM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:

On 28 February 2010 00:47, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>checkboards, uneven and even grids, bricks or pavement tiling, tartan,
>>certain carpet patterns, zigzag stitching, pixel art tiles
>>(particularly the older, low res ones)...
> So these would be those words that I was talking about when I said
>> Maybe later if someone wants to describe that pattern that a tic-tac-toe
>> board makes they could make a bigger lujvo that pulls {linji} into it
> I think checker boards, pixel art tiles, and a brick wall all exhibit a
> pattern that is a variation on the basic, standard check pattern.  So, is it
> fair to say that the more general/standard the idea, the smaller the lujvo
> can comfortably be?  While the more specific/non-standard/varied ideas get
> longer lujvo?
> e.g.  {cicti'a} = "storm" but when we want to get more specific we have
> {bifyvilcarvi} = "windstorm"

If "storm" is basic to the meaning of "windstorm", we might want it be
morphologically reflected upon lujvo. In spite of their semantic
hierarchy, {bifyvilcarvi} does not *appear* to be so based on
{cicti'a}, but radically differing in their components. More
reasonable would be {bif-cic-ti'a} as "windstorm" based on {cic-ti'a}
as "storm". Predictable lujvo like these (or their relationships
thereof), are also probably more friendly to most beginners; if they
see {bifcicti'a}, they would immediately *see* that its meaning is a
specified instance of {cicti'a}, and {cicti'a} of {ti'a/tcima}; and,
if they have {cicti'a} but want to get more specific about it in their
own expressions, they would know they have to add some specifying
component(s) to the basic one, rather than radically swapping it with
a whole different set of components (like {bifyvilcarvi}).