Den lördagen den 22:e november 2014 kl. 06:03:27 UTC+1 skrev Pierre Abbat:
Vlatai was written before there was a precise analysis of what a Lojban
syllable is.
Okay, that I didn't know. Then it might make sense to just keep this word (stanruasabi) as is, I guess? Anyone disagree?
I don't have any problem with creating stage-4's straight off. I do make
stage-3's when the foreign part is too short (e.g. bakrto), doesn't fit well
into stage-4 shape, or would be ambiguous between two very different things
(e.g. rutrmalpigi, ragrmalpigi). "sorpeka" was shortened from a lujvo, not a
stage-3.
I know I should probably be more open minded to straigt-to-stage-4 words, but for now I'm hesitant to make them myself. If someone feels the need of a stage-4 from a stage-3 I've created, I hope they can create such a word. I guess I see stage-3 as some kind of necessary intermediate before full loan, in parallel to how it often works in natlangs (original spelling/pronounciation -> [heavy usage] -> full native word).
Yes I'm aware that it's a shortened lujvo, it was just a good example that popped into my mind since I used "sorprekarce" a lot and myself experienced the need for a shortened form in my daily Lojban usage. I would argue that lujvo and stage-3 share a lot of characteristics though, since they both are bound by morphological rules and their form official and controlled.
I think that there should be a clear distinction between stage 3 and stage 4.
Once I borrowed a word "turndun" (an Australian noisemaker, also called a
bullroarer). At first I got "turndunu", but that is a stage-3 for some kind of
structure, so I altered it to "turdunu".
That's indeed quite interesting, I will keep that in mind.
Thank you all. I hope this discussion wasn't offending anyone! I'm currently spending a lot of time daily to try to help expand our dictionary, and I would like to do it as careful and quality controlled as I possibly can.