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

[Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>]

Jorge Llambías wrote:
> On 1/5/06, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> 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?
>
>
> I think cmevla should be a class of brivla. Stage 1 are quoted text,
> so they are not even borrowings.

Actually, they are the purist form of  borrowing, in that they make use 
of another language without consuming or modifying it in any way.  They 
aren't necessarily valsi, though.

lojbab