From ragnarok@pobox.com Mon Oct 22 13:23:15 2001
Return-Path: <raganok@intrex.net>
X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 22 Oct 2001 20:23:15 -0000
Received: (qmail 59435 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2001 20:23:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26)
  by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Oct 2001 20:23:14 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250)
  by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Oct 2001 20:23:14 -0000
Received: from Craig [209.42.200.98] by intrex.net
  (SMTPD32-5.05) id A0334CA301AC; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:23:15 -0400
Reply-To: <ragnarok@pobox.com>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] Types of fu'ivla in natural languages
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:23:13 -0400
Message-ID: <LPBBLNNHBOGBGAINBIEFAEJCCEAA.raganok@intrex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <01102210384115.07854@neofelis>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
X-eGroups-From: "Craig" <raganok@intrex.net>
From: "Craig" <ragnarok@pobox.com>
X-Yahoo-Profile: xreig

>How common are types 2, 3, and 4 fu'ivla in natural languages? (I don't
think
>it makes sense to speak of a type-1 fu'ivla in a language that doesn't have
a
>foreign-word marker.)

My sense is that type 1 is reasonably common, and in English is the same as
type 2. Note that we often mark foreign words by italicizing them. Type 3
don't occur in English, and type 4 are not randomly coined but are used when
a new idea is introduced.

--la kreig.daniyl.

'.i do cu vanci le ba panje xusra
.i denci gunma le se gidva'

xy.sy. gubmau ckiku nacycme: 0x5C3A1E74