Re: [lojban] Re: ki'a

[Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>]

Jorge Llambías wrote:
> I suppose that "no one" is meant as hyperbole,

Yes.

> but anyway, I can
> immediately think of five people who did have an idea:
> Pierre, who coined the fu'ivla
> timos, who used it,
> Adam and Yanis, who at least knew to look for it in jbovlaste,

jbovlaste remains unofficial, and in any event there is little reason to 
suspect that an arbitrary unfamiliar fu'ivla would be found therein.

> and myself, who had used it at least twice, in
> <http://www.lojban.org/texts/translations/alice/alice_10.html>
> and in <http://jbo.wikipedia.org/wiki/odbenu>, and now it can
> also be found in <http://jbo.wikipedia.org/wiki/pinpedi>
>
> > A fu'ivla should remain a Type III - marked by a
> > semantic-hint rafsi - until its usage is so common that usage (and/or
> > Zipf's law) indicates a need for a shorter form.  I don't think that any
> > fu'ivla has received such usage.
>
> pe'i lo cimoi klesi fu'ivla cu mablrmonstrositi gi'e rirci lo ka mi zmanei
> ke'a lo vomoi klesi

Perhaps, those who are coining them may like them (until caught by a 
slinku'i error), but those reading them and not familiar with them are 
probably more likely to appreciate Type IIIs.

fu'ivla remain BY POLICY, substandard Lojban, since this encourages the 
preferred kind of word building using lujvo.  Having fu'ivla be 
aesthetically unpleasing to some people is supportive of this policy.

lojbab