Re: Why "fu'ivla"?

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la paulos cusku di'e

> I really don't understand why this lujvo is being used to replace
> "le'avla". If something is a "copy" word, it should have been "copied"
> in some way. However, I haven't seen a single "fu'ivla" that has
> been copied from the source language -- they are always adapted to
> some extent, at least phonologically/orthographically, and most
> frequently with the addition of a classifier prefix.

I don't see why that is not a copy. A copy does not have to be a
perfect imitation, it necessarily must adapt to the medium where
it is copied, in this case the morphology of Lojban.

The x4 of fukpi can even be used for the fu'ivla making algorithm.

> If "le'avla" doesn't reflect the concept well,

There's no "if" about it. {lebna} means "x1 takes/removes x2 from
x3", so that after the taking, the x3 no longer has the x2. This is
definitely not what happens with fu'ivla. The language from where
they are taken doesn't lose the word. {cpavla} would be more acceptable
from this point of view, since {cpacu} is obtaining without x3
necessarily losing the x2, but in any case {selcpavla} would be more
regular.

> why not a compound of
> "mapti", or a gismu made in the same way as "cmavo" and "lujvo"?

A gismu is probably out of the question by now. A lujvo with mapti
might be formed, but I don't see the problem with fu'ivla. "Copy",
or {fukpi} do not mean identical copy.

Jorge