On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Luke Bergen
<lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not even sure what that point was? It sounded like he was making an argument against fu'ivla when lujvo CAN be made. e.g. swift theives.
I think in general it's a good idea to go with lujvo for things, but one rule of thumb that I try to go by is "does this word seem to get copied from language to language? If so, maybe it should be copied to lojban". e.g. "hypnotism" comes from the french "hypnotique" which comes from the latin "hypnoticus" so I would most likely expect to see this as a fu'ivla. It could also arguably be a lujvo, but since people have been copying it around for millenia from language to language. Why not continue that with something like {xipnrtismu} or the like instead of making either some ungodly lujvo to explain what it is in modern day or some completely off the wall thing based off of what it originally meant? e.g. (respectively) {menjitrvelmikce} or {cnosipna}.
.o'anai.i'a mi dukse prami la sutra zerle'a cpidze .i na zerle'a le se casnu
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Warrigal
<ihope127+w@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Jonathan Jones <
eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your response indicates to me that you missed my point entirely.
unrelated argument in favor of fu'ivla. If you made a point that I
failed to respond to, that is simply because I had no response.
--
--
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.