On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Pierre Abbat
<phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
On Monday, July 09, 2012 09:28:26 AM Jonathan Jones wrote:
> Also, it doesn't matter how much kinship pomegranates and apples share, for
> the same reason it doesn't matter that lo latcribe is neither bear nor cat.
> Descriptive metaphors are to'e forbidden in Lojban.
lo latcribe be la barda ku ja'a cribe .iku'i lo latcribe be la cmalu cu se
steci lo ka lazyjutsi pamei
On Monday, July 09, 2012 12:43:16 PM Paul Predkiewicz wrote:
> Or, you could even put the phoenecians into the game, "who were active
> in broadening its cultivation, partly for religious reasons." as
> wikipedia puts it.
The Phoenicians being active in broadening its cultivation is an argument for
calling it "rimbone", as Phoenician was closely related to Hebrew. Or should
it be "rimbonu"?
Pierre
Except that interposing an arbitrary consonant for the purposes of lojbanization would destroy the triliteral root, and make it look like it comes from "r-m-b", which is non-existent (at least in Hebrew). So in this case I'd prefer to not use the Semitic.
--gejyspa
P.S. Put me down for preferring type-3 fu'ivla over type 4 (but in this case, I wouldn't mind either one, and like the lujvo best).