[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban-beginners] Re: fu'ivla, lebvla, le'avla
- To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
- Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: fu'ivla, lebvla, le'avla
- From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 20:22:05 -0300
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4whtA0tUYUkGywmn9QZ61FVpT0ek+H9GAotCkHiC+3Q=; b=IDRZBv5OVSY8RRZxdHgCFqEXyGwDbdC0+nk2d/daoZ3pU1I2wlJGUhJsQpkikMquaH 8f9+34qeOYcYdx3nsnfiXJMYldiemgyG1kdDw2BqUQzQ3uRzVgR46fYFidvN0Q6o3Hld k3duYX/wr1t/dLSLq0FqyieVKrlApFys5CrTQ=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=N8CSR/uPWoPKmHu6W8E9uq5VWGdmF2AlYwzOon9TUyMYAwEdZyArArPJxjmCmIBvlY vVn2RvGy7sOqwNxumiOeDbq9RyixHmF3oOq/bPcXeYAWZiKWJ949ONv4hbUnA4y9eVnz RRvi1K9Mh485cWuWEY1urlPiafsM1JHFImfHQ=
- In-reply-to: <4de8c3930905041356u296cf5ahbc9f6f474427066d@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <4de8c3930905041356u296cf5ahbc9f6f474427066d@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
- Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 5:56 PM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the word list, "le'avla" is used to explain such words as "na'u"
> and "klerafsi". There is also "lebvla", as in "gimlebvla". "lebvla"
> itself is defined as "loan word", which is what "fu'ivla" supposedly
> means too.
>
> Do they really have the same meaning? If so, which one of them is more
> preferable?
"fu'ivla" is the preferred form. "le'avla" was the original coinage,
but it was thought to be a it malglico, since the lender language
doesn't really lose the ability to keep using its word, as "lebna"
would suggest.
mu'o mi'e xorxes