From phma@webjockey.net Fri Dec 06 09:37:43 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Dec 2002 17:37:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 35553 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2002 17:37:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2002 17:37:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2002 17:37:42 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18KMQ2-0007Qa-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 09:37:42 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18KMPT-0007QA-00; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 09:37:07 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 06 Dec 2002 09:37:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from 208-150-110-21-adsl.precisionet.net ([208.150.110.21] helo=neofelis.ixazon.lan) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18KMPN-0007Q0-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 09:37:02 -0800 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id B20993C47F; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 12:36:29 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: Subject: [lojban] Re: penguins, neologisms, cratylism (was: RE: penguins Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 12:36:25 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: In-Reply-To: X-Spamtrap: fesmri@ixazon.dynip.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <02120612362504.02354@neofelis> X-archive-position: 3141 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: phma@webjockey.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Pierre Abbat Reply-To: phma@webjockey.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=92712300 On Thursday 05 December 2002 18:58, And Rosta wrote: > I know why you think that; there are sound rational grounds. > > But {sfenisku} was my favourite. Long-form fuhivla do indeed seem > too clunky, while lujvo can seem blandly homogeneous and lacking > in distinctiveness, especially in what one might call 'cratylism', > the property of form mystically embodying meaning. I've there's > one person whose judgement I'd trust on neologisms, it would be > Michael Helsem. But if lo sfenisku is a penguin, what is lo nisku? Between {sfeniku} and {sfenisu}, I think I prefer {sfenisu}, as there is some Greek root -sphenic which I think means "wedgelike" (I've actually seen "sphenic" only in "tribosphenic", which is a type of molar). phma