Re: SNU: xorvo

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>Yep. But it's four term - and I find a two syllable word very attractive
>in an ba'e informal speech. I don't propose to put it in any
>of the official dictionaries. Okay?

I then propose that you propose a type IV fu'ivla.  I will suggest "xrvska"
as a natural.  The weakness os that it has no rafsi, and that therefore you
need to ise "zei" to make a "lujvo".  But this also may be remedied by an
unconvention that is still legal: xrvskagu'e is another type IV fu'ivla,
as would be xrvgu'e if you really want brevity.

I think I would rather see a stretching of rules within the Type 3 and 4
fu'ivla than crossing the line into gismu/lujvo space, and especially rafsi
space.  That is becuase, while it is only informal and a non-proposal now, you
ARE after all one of our most prolific Lojbanists, and your examples will be
emulated.  And your informalities will, like mine, come to be treated as
gospel.  Then 5 years from now when we do DESCRIPTIVE Lojban dictionaries,
we will have to acknowledge the reality of xorvo, or worse yet, resolve the
ambiguity when someone else has proposed a "real" gismu that would naturally
use "xro".

The main wekaness in proposing a Type IV fu'ivla is that we NEVER make it
official without checking it against the morphology algorithm - Nora has
a program.  But I am pretty sure the above suggestions work.

lojbab