On Sunday, July 08, 2012 01:10:26 AM gleki wrote:
> Type 3 fu'ivla is not unnaturalistic at all. Ancient Egyptian (ju'ocu'i the
> eldest written language that we are aware of)
> actually had such type of words.
> e.g.
> [image: nfr][image: nfr][image: nfr][image: pr] pronounced as *nfrw *means
> "foundations of a house" where [image: pr] means house in order to
> distinguish it from other homophones pronounced as *nfrw* as well.
>
> It's like {grutrgranate} and {tricrgranate} in Lojban.
The Egyptian writing system has nothing to do with rafsi classifiers on
borrowed words. A better natlang example of a type-3 fu'ivla is "weeverfish"
(or "weaverfish"), where "weever" is from Old French and "fish" is native.
On Sunday, July 08, 2012 01:11:35 AM gleki wrote:
> Sorry to say but I have to support Lindar's {granatu} Type 4 fu'ivla.
> Don't ask me for any logic in such decision cuz I said earlier there could
> be no logic in this field at all.
It could be "granatu" or "granato" in my opinion, but I prefer both of them to
"granate", which is the vocative, which was lost.
Another possibility is "rimbone" or "rumbona", from Semitic, with "b" thrown
in for the morphology.
Pierre
--
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa