Difference between revisions of "fu'ivla"

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
;fu'ivla
 
;fu'ivla
 
:Borrowed word
 
:Borrowed word
<noinclude>[[lo fu'ivla cu mo|Read more...]]</noinclude>
+
<noinclude>
 +
'''fu'ivla''' is a morphologically defined [[brivla]] in Lojban, a "borrowed word" (with the literal meaning "copy word").
 +
==History==
 +
Formerly called ''le'avla'', a more literal [[calque]] of 'loan word'.
 +
*[[pne]]:
 +
*:The shift from ''le'avla'' to ''fu'ivla'' may have come from Colin Fine<ref>http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9305/msg00075.html</ref> who wanted to start using '''fu'ivla''' instead of '''le'avla'''. At that time, there appears to have been a little discussion as to whether '''fu'ivla''' was a better word for the concept<ref>http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9305/threads.html#00076</ref>.
 +
==Types of fu'ivla==
 +
There are four ways to borrow a word into Lojban, with increasing degree of integration:
 +
*Type 1 fu'ivla: '''me la'o ly.''' + word in original spelling + '''ly.''' E.g. '''me la'o ly. Phascolarctos .ly.'''
 +
**'''ly.''' is for Latin since we borrow this word from Latin. However, any other letter is possible. Officially, the choice of word is quite arbitrary. People get used to '''gy.''' (from '''glico''' - ''English'').
 +
** Another variant on Method 1 is '''me la'e zoi gy. Phascolarctos .gy.'''
 +
** [[And Rosta]]:
 +
*** Methods 1 & 2 are also less integrated syntactically. '''me''' has only an x1 (x2 was almost never used). Hence they won't work for fu'ivla that need to be polyadic.
 +
*Type 2 fu'ivla: '''me la''' + Lojbanized [[cmevla]]. E.g. '''me la faskolerktos.'''
 +
**[[mark]]:
 +
*** It is OK for noun-like brivla, but less fitting for verb-like brivla, which might have other places.  Granted, noun-like ones are much more common. Still, even something like '''cmacrnintegrali''' (''integral'' in the calculus sense) is likely to have a place structure like ''x1 is the integral of x2 with respect to variable x3'' or some such. These other places can't always be intuited for Type 3 and Type 4 fu'ivla.
 +
 
 +
*[[Type 3 fu'ivla]]: [[gismu]] + buffer consonant(s) + Lojbanized word. E.g. '''mabrnfaskolarkto'''
 +
**[[CLL]] indicates that the canonical form of fu'ivla morphologically is Type 3, with four-letter [[rafsi]] prefixes.
 +
***[[rab.spir|rab.spir:]]
 +
**** Four-letter prefixes are recommended only because if you use a three-letter prefix and don't check for a consonant cluster, you might end up making a non-fu'ivla. With tools like [[vlatai|vlatai]] at our disposal, we shouldn't be afraid of 3-letter rafsi prefixes, which can sometimes give nicer, less "crunchy" words ('''djarspageti''', for example, is much nicer than '''cidjrspageti''').
 +
*** [[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion:]]
 +
**** Generic ideological objections: (1) the 4-letter version is completely predictable, the 3-letter isn't; (2) I won't be running vlatai in face-to-face interaction; (3) of course fu'ivla should be crunchy -- how else will I realise immediately they aren't lujvo?
 +
** [[phma]]:
 +
*** 3-letter rafsi fu'ivla are valid type 3 only if the rafsi is of CVC form.  At least that's what vlatai thinks.
 +
**** [[rab.spir|rab.spir:]]
 +
***** My copy of vlatai parses '''djarspageti '''just fine.
 +
**** Do make sure you're using the absolutely latest vlatai. It was a target of many bug fixes in 0.37
 +
**** No convention exists for what vowel to choose as the final vowel of a loan word, if it ends in a consonant in the source language, and that language's morphology does not suggest a suitable final vowel (unlike the case for [[Borrowing words from Graeco-Latin|Latin]].) [[User:Nick Nicholas|Nick Nicholas]] proposes in the [http://ptolemy.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/lojbanbrochure/lessons/less12fuhivla.html lessons] that the final vowel simply be repeated; e.g. Mamluke - '''mamluk '''=> '''prenrmamluk<u>u</u>'''.
 +
****Another (previous?) proposal was that the final vowel of the gismu used as prefix be used: '''pren-r-mamluk-u''' (in this case happily both conventions agree)
 +
*****Counterexample: '''zgik<u>e</u>''' + '''r<u>o</u>k''' -> '''zgikrnrok<u>o</u>''' vs. '''zgikrnrok<u>e</u>'''.
 +
****** I think you've added an extra hyphen to '''zgiknroko''' and '''zgiknroke'''. I've never heard of nrock music.
 +
*******The advantage the former proposal has is that it is also usable for Type 4 fu'ivla, whereas the latter is only usable for Type 3.
 +
*[[type 4 fu'ivla|Type 4 fu'ivla]]: Lojbanized word, with clusters to guarantee it will not fall apart morphologically. E.g. '''fasxo larto'''
 +
 
 +
== References ==
 +
<references />
 +
</noinclude>

Revision as of 08:34, 29 August 2014

fu'ivla
Borrowed word

fu'ivla is a morphologically defined brivla in Lojban, a "borrowed word" (with the literal meaning "copy word").

History

Formerly called le'avla, a more literal calque of 'loan word'.

  • pne:
    The shift from le'avla to fu'ivla may have come from Colin Fine[1] who wanted to start using fu'ivla instead of le'avla. At that time, there appears to have been a little discussion as to whether fu'ivla was a better word for the concept[2].

Types of fu'ivla

There are four ways to borrow a word into Lojban, with increasing degree of integration:

  • Type 1 fu'ivla: me la'o ly. + word in original spelling + ly. E.g. me la'o ly. Phascolarctos .ly.
    • ly. is for Latin since we borrow this word from Latin. However, any other letter is possible. Officially, the choice of word is quite arbitrary. People get used to gy. (from glico - English).
    • Another variant on Method 1 is me la'e zoi gy. Phascolarctos .gy.
    • And Rosta:
      • Methods 1 & 2 are also less integrated syntactically. me has only an x1 (x2 was almost never used). Hence they won't work for fu'ivla that need to be polyadic.
  • Type 2 fu'ivla: me la + Lojbanized cmevla. E.g. me la faskolerktos.
    • mark:
      • It is OK for noun-like brivla, but less fitting for verb-like brivla, which might have other places. Granted, noun-like ones are much more common. Still, even something like cmacrnintegrali (integral in the calculus sense) is likely to have a place structure like x1 is the integral of x2 with respect to variable x3 or some such. These other places can't always be intuited for Type 3 and Type 4 fu'ivla.
  • Type 3 fu'ivla: gismu + buffer consonant(s) + Lojbanized word. E.g. mabrnfaskolarkto
    • CLL indicates that the canonical form of fu'ivla morphologically is Type 3, with four-letter rafsi prefixes.
      • rab.spir:
        • Four-letter prefixes are recommended only because if you use a three-letter prefix and don't check for a consonant cluster, you might end up making a non-fu'ivla. With tools like vlatai at our disposal, we shouldn't be afraid of 3-letter rafsi prefixes, which can sometimes give nicer, less "crunchy" words (djarspageti, for example, is much nicer than cidjrspageti).
      • nitcion:
        • Generic ideological objections: (1) the 4-letter version is completely predictable, the 3-letter isn't; (2) I won't be running vlatai in face-to-face interaction; (3) of course fu'ivla should be crunchy -- how else will I realise immediately they aren't lujvo?
    • phma:
      • 3-letter rafsi fu'ivla are valid type 3 only if the rafsi is of CVC form. At least that's what vlatai thinks.
        • rab.spir:
          • My copy of vlatai parses djarspageti just fine.
        • Do make sure you're using the absolutely latest vlatai. It was a target of many bug fixes in 0.37
        • No convention exists for what vowel to choose as the final vowel of a loan word, if it ends in a consonant in the source language, and that language's morphology does not suggest a suitable final vowel (unlike the case for Latin.) Nick Nicholas proposes in the lessons that the final vowel simply be repeated; e.g. Mamluke - mamluk => prenrmamluku.
        • Another (previous?) proposal was that the final vowel of the gismu used as prefix be used: pren-r-mamluk-u (in this case happily both conventions agree)
          • Counterexample: zgike + rok -> zgikrnroko vs. zgikrnroke.
            • I think you've added an extra hyphen to zgiknroko and zgiknroke. I've never heard of nrock music.
              • The advantage the former proposal has is that it is also usable for Type 4 fu'ivla, whereas the latter is only usable for Type 3.
  • Type 4 fu'ivla: Lojbanized word, with clusters to guarantee it will not fall apart morphologically. E.g. fasxo larto

References