From mark@xxx.xxxx Mon Sep 27 07:03:08 1999 X-Digest-Num: 246 Message-ID: <44114.246.1348.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: 27 Sep 1999 14:03:08 -0000 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:53:05 +0300 >From: Robin Turner >Organization: Bilkent University > >From: Robin Turner > >la mark. cusku di'e > >> > >> >vi frili fa lenu terve'u lo cecla .i ku'i pe'i loi prenu pe la turkie >> ^^^^^^ >> Back at my old job. Cmene alert! > >?? {prenu} is a cmene? Presumably the spacing has come out strange; >{turkie} should have been {turkies} or something like that. The spacing was fine... if you look at it in a monospace font. :) Yes, "turkie" is what I was complaining about; you missed the final consonant so it isn't a valid cmene (and I really don't think we should be working with fu'ivla with no category-rafsi at this point). Hmm. Should it have been {turki,es}? I don't know Turkish. > I normally use >a fu'ivla like {gugdrturkie}, {kulnrturkie}. Incidentally, I've Lojbanised >"Turkey" like this because > > - {turki} can't be a fu'ivla because it has CVCCV structure. Hmm, I thought that in theory you can have fu'ivla that looked like gismu, but they are for the far future, when even Type 4 fu'ivla are long accepted. It doesn't matter if I'm wrong; you're still right that you shouldn't use {turki} as a fu'ivla. But that doesn't mean {gugdrturkie} can't be. > - the name of the country is "Türkiye", which by strict Lojbanisation >would be {TIRki,ie} which is orthographically unhelpful. {turkie} comes >close enough to some pronunciations, and is easier to recognise for Turks >and non-Turks alike (reverse the last two letters and you get the German, >for example). Reasonable (so it seems that the ending {i,e} does make more sense)... but don't forget either the classifier rafsi (to make it a Type 3 fu'ivla) or the final consonant (to make it a cmene)! The world's not ready for Type 4 fu'ivla yet, and you're using {la} here, so a cmene makes sense. ~mark