Subject: Re: [lojban] Koalas

From: Pierre Abbat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 12:04:18 -0400

On Saturday 11 August 2001 05:19, Nick NICHOLAS wrote:
> 2. A Linnaean fu'ivla that doesn't allow a reasonable reconstruction of
> the Latin it came from is useless. We are not importing fu'ivla to
> be easily speakable; we are importing them to be understood. And I'm
> sorry, but there is no way I'm going to get from fasxolarto to
> Phascolarctos. The x is just wrong, and who on earth said Lojban should be
> afraid of rkt? (And -arkto, at least, I would have recognised as the Greek
> for 'bear'.) The legitimate fu'ivla for this, as far as I'm concerned, is
> danlrfaskolarkto (or mabrnfaskolarkto). I still have to work out from
> that that the f is Greek ph rather than Latin f, but at least now I
> stand a chance of doing an index search (if not a web search.) If you'll
> make it fasxolarto, you might as well make it rko'ala and be done with it.

There is a rule that if three consonants come together in a brivla, the 
second two must be a valid initial pair, but I forgot, when making the word, 
that this does not apply when one of them is r, n, or l. (I was going to say 
"when one of the first two", but vlatai considers "mabjrate" and "madjrate" 
to be well-formed fu'ivla.) The x has to be x for the type-4 fu'ivla, since 
"faskolarkto" breaks up. (The other possibility is "faksolarkto", but that 
sounds worse to me.) So it's "mabrnfaskolarkto" for type 3 and "fasxolarkto" 
for type 4. I have corrected the wiki.

"rko'ala" is not a well-formed fu'ivla. "kro'ala" is, as are other variants.

phma