On Tue, 25 May 2010, Warrigal wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:47 PM, symuyn <rbysamppi@gmail.com> wrote:There have been some discussions on the IRC room about {fu'ivla} and its proper definition. People currently use {fu'ivla} to refer to: A. general loanwords between any two languages or B. the Lojban morphological class of brivla. These are definitely two different concepts, though they happen to overlap a lot in Lojban. The question is: which definition should {fu'ivla} be defined to have?Much like the English word "salsa" (which means a specific Spanish-related type of sauce, whereas the Spanish word "salsa" simply means "sauce"), the Lojban word {fu'ivla} should mean "loanword", whereas the English word "fu'ivla" should mean "member of the Lojban morphological class of brivla designed to accomodate loanwords".
That sounds like it would lead to absolutely horrible confusion. We finally
got "cmene"/{cmene}/{cmevla} straightened out, let's not reintroduce the same
problem for "fu'ivla"/{fu'ivla}.
That said, {fu'ivla} does seem more natural for a loan word. Not sure what
would be a good word for a non-gismu non-lujvo brivla, though. {zi'evla} is
cute, but seems to break under analysis (exactly who is free to do what under
what conditions?). Also, should there perhaps be separate words for
distinguishing type-3 from type-4? Not that there shouldn't be a word for the
combined class, just pondering.
--
Adam Lopresto
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/
The box said "Requires Windows 95 or better." I can't understand why
it won't work on my Linux computer.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.