Re: [lojban] stage 1 and 2 non-fu'ivla

[Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org>]

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> I don't consider stage 1 and stage 2 borrowings to be fu'ivla,
> because to me fu'ivla means "single brivla that is based on a
> borrowing from another language".
>
> How do other people feel about this?

Semantic drift.

fu'ivla probably just meant "loan word", but now denotes a specific class 
of brivla.

I wouldn't worry about it too much.

--
Arnt Richard Johansen                                http://arj.nvg.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.