> You seem to be trying to add type IV fu'ivla with the idea that everyday
> people will learn these as often and as easily as they learn gismu. If
> they don't, you gain nothing by making them type IV over type I-III.
I find gismu hard to learn and spend much of the time looking them up when I
write Lojban. They don't look like other words I know for what they mean.
{gerku}, for example, is a mixture of Chinese and Hindi, neither of which I
know. {simba}, the Loglan word, makes a lot more sense than {cinfo} - it's
the same as Swahili, and one letter different from Sanskrit. {ractu} and
{ratcu} are too close.
Fu'ivla based on Linnean names, which about 32 of the 39 are, are easier to
remember. They come from one language (or often two, Latin and Greek), and
the Linnean names are used by biologists and others worldwide. I see nothing
wrong with using Linnean fu'ivla as common names; this is common in French
and Spanish (where many of them, e.g. "orge" and "trigo", are not fu'ivla),
and happens ofter enough in English (e.g. spirea).