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

[Arnt Richard Johansen <lojban-out@lojban.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.


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.