Thank you stevo, you've got a point there. Maybe it makes sense to use "v" as initial consonant!
Den fredagen den 21:e november 2014 kl. 20:19:17 UTC+1 skrev la durka:
Are
we so sure {stanruasabi} isn't a type-3 fu'ivla? The fu'ivla types are
just a convention anyway. I know the Book says the "tail" of a type-3
fu'ivla should start with a consonant, but a glide {ua} is _nearly_ a
consonant. Furthermore, syllable analysis (using camxes) gives us
{sta,nr,ua,sa,bi} which has that telltale consonantal syllable.
So I say {stanruasabi} is type-3 and fine. What do you think?
mu'o mi'e la durkavore
I say it's problematic and gray enough to motivate the addition of an initial consonant, but maybe I should rethink. "vlatai" does classify it as fu'ivla stage-4 though, and can't decompose it into stem and loan word (as a stage-3). This to me is troublesome. It seems odd to end up with a technical stage-4 that has the form of a stage-3. Either you make a stage-3 properly, or you make a short stage-4.
Den fredagen den 21:e november 2014 kl. 23:05:53 UTC+1 skrev xorxes:
As you say, it's just a conventional name, nothing really hinges on that. I agree it makes sense to include such things among type-3. But personally I'd go with a full type-4, maybe "uaxsabi".
mu'o mi'e xorxes
Okay, again maybe I should rethink. Any idea why "vlatai" wasn't programmed to take diphthongs into account this way?
Regarding your recommendation with a full stage-4, I don't agree with that line of thinking (but I get your point). Personally, I find it frustrating to see stage-4:s created directly and have trouble taking them "as seriously" as stage-3:s (I know I shouldn't react this way, but I do). I intuitively respect "sorpeka" much, much more (since it was created out of need and from an existing word), than stage-4:s with no pre-existing need and actual stage-3. I kind of want a stage-3 to exist before hand, and it's usage to motivate the creation of a stage-4. It feels like a "waste" of semantic space as well as unnecessary and risky behaviour (without guaranteeing syntactic non-decomposing).
I don't want to dismiss your view entirely, but I would feel a lot more comfortable with a stage-3 existing before it's shortened into a stage-4. Do you understand what I'm feeling? No offense to those who feel otherwise, truly! Maybe I'm too strict, I don't know...