On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:Presumably that's from "nu finti lo valsi poi no bangu cu ponse (ke'a)".
> oh that's sweet. That'd take forever to memorize. I have a new mission in
> life. Define lujvo that no other language has a word for yet. And I shall
> call this activity: nunynonbaupo'evlafi'i
Let's set aside the question of whether languages can own any words.
The major problem I have with the structure of that lujvo is how to
get the "nonbaupo'e" part from "no bangu cu ponse (ke'a)".
I'm not saying it's wrong, only that we don't really have any rules
for constructing lujvo out of whole bridi. All our rules really boil
down to reducing everything to two part lujvo. My first interpretation
for "nonbau" would be from "bangu be no da", something like "x1 is a
language with no speakers", not from "no bangu". And a "nonbaupo'e"
would be the owner of such a language. "nonbaupo'evla" could then be
"x1 is a word meaning 'owner of a language with no speakers' " and
then your lujvo would be "x1 is an event of creating words meaning
'owner of a language with no speakers'".
But as I said, we don't really have conventions for many-component
lujvo, since they are so cumbersome that nobody uses them. So if what
you want is clarity, it is better to avoid long lujvo. For purposes of
obfuscation they can be rather useful though.
mu'o mi'e xorxes