On 6/17/07, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:"Drum&bass" is a good choice for not using fu'ivla, but "house" is not.{zdani} includes not only human houses, but also bird nests, badger setts,
and beehives (but not bonobo nests, which are {ckana}). If a birdwatcher
unfamiliar with house music hears the term {zdazgi}, he may think of songs
birds sing at home.
If {zdazgi} is bad because it can mean either "songs birds sing at home" or "songs people enjoy at club", what about the very {zdani} which can mean either " nest" or "house" or "lair" or "den"? What I have been noticing is that {zdazgi} should be capable of bearing a conceptual framework equivalent to that of {zdani} by which several different ideas (nest, house...) can be meant in a generalized sense but can also be more specific by means of tanru or the context. {zdazgi} may be thought of as a generic term for "music that happens inside zdani", just like {zdani} is for "a structure that let things live within it". Consider the Platonic "form". Words like {zdani} or {stizu} or {danlu}... practically they are literal symbols of respective "forms". And so may {zdazgi} be. And just like such modifications as {le do zdani} and {le la djordj.buc. zdani} is possible, so would {le dikca zdazgi} and {le cipni zdazgi} be possible.
After all, if a person unfamiliar with bird nests hears the term {zdani}, she may think of some person's house at first, right? So, it should be ok if somebody thinks of {zdazgi} as, at first, "songs which birds sing at home". And when he hears something like {ba lenu xaufri tu'a le vacysai kei mi'a klama zo'e vi le tcadu tezu'e lenu tirna lei zdazgi gi'e dansu}, it's unlikely that he would mistake {zdazgi} to be songs sung by birds.
Vid