Re: Navaho (was: version declaration for le lojbau)

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>]

actually, remember that Zipfean 'le'avla', or whatever we call them will
eventually lose the rafsi classifiers in some cases.  The words with class-
ifoers are type 3 le'avla, and we have no approved type 4 words yet without
classifiers since I doubt that anyone wants to commit to any word being
used enough to demand it (I certainly don't).  It is unclear in my mind whether
name-form or borrowing form Lojbanization gives a better fit the former
requires no vowels on the end, while theo latter allows vowels but requires
in type 4 words that you be very very careful to avoid lujvo forms and slinkui
forms.  Hmm - you CAN put schwa in names though.

I agree that another lujvo is acceptable to replace le'avla longer term if we
can agree on one, though I contend that the policy remains that words of
high frequency are allowed to drop cmavo rafsi where this shortens the word,
which is the rationale permitting le'avla as it is.  Certainly we do not r
require abstractor cmavo and ke/bo grouping cmavo in lujvo situations.  I think
that the requirements for dropping 'se' are a much higher frequency, since
we gave 'se' a great rafsi for the front of most words - but selyle'avla makes
a 6 syllable word when most of the other common grammatical terms used in
Lojban discussion are only 2 or 3 (sorry 5 syllable), and that makes dropping
the 'se' justifiable unless someone can think of a reasonably common usage
that would serve as an alternate interpretation for le'avla based on
lebna-tavla as the underlying metaphor.

I vaguely suspect that there is a better metaphor than fukpi-valsi, but maybe
not one with only two terms.  Something that reflects 'Lojbanization', maybe
or perhaps combining two ideas: cmene-brivla (which really is the concept
behind borrowing).  We might while we are at it try to come up with tanru or
lujvo for the 4 types of le'avla (of which type 1 is names, anyway).

lojbab