On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Minimiscience
<minimiscience@gmail.com> wrote:
de'i li 22 pi'e 08 pi'e 2010 la'o fy. Luke Bergen .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra.
> 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.
.skamyxatra
You do realize that if "This word is derived from an older word" is the
deciding criterion for whether a {fu'ivla} should be made, then literally
almost *every* word in *every* natural language *ever* will be made into a
{fu'ivla}, right? Deriving words from older words is how languages grow,
develop, and eventually split off from other languages. The relatively few
words that are coined on the spot either die off or eventually serve as the
basis for newer words. The more relevant question for {fu'ivla} formation
should be "What percentage of the global population recognizes this word?",
under which very few rank highly.
mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.
--
jicmu traji zifre fa loi remna lonu senpi
--