[lojban] Re: ki'a

["Jorge Llambías" <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On 11/20/06, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
> jbovlaste remains unofficial, and in any event there is little reason to
> suspect that an arbitrary unfamiliar fu'ivla would be found therein.

In this case, it was there, and probably wouldn't have been used if it
wasn't, because that's where timos got it from. That something is
unofficial, as lots of things in Lojban are, does not make it less
useful.

> 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.

People who don't know the fu'ivla rules should not coin Type IV's, I agree.
Fortunately, they generally don't, as far as I'm aware. People much more
often tend to coin illegal cmevla than illegal Type IV fu'ivla. Also, people
sometimes coin pseudo-Type III fu'ivla, when they don't realize that the
rafsi classifier for Type III's can't be just any rafsi, or else when they use
a lujvo as a classifier.

> 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.

I consider Type III's substandard too, but not Type IV's, which is why I'm
more likely, if coining one, to coin a Type IV than a Type III. But I'm also
more likely to use a fu'ivla already coined by someone else (usually Pierre,
who has coined many good animal and plant names fu'ivla) than to coin
one myself.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


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.