ianek:
>{mucfro} or {frosmuci}. The former is shorter, but has an unpleasant
>consonant cluster. You don't normally need things like joi, jev or bor
>inside lujvos, because you can always define them as you like.
You are right, I didn’t think of that. On the other hand, I feel a
kind of psychological resistance against a lujvo which *looks* like it
said 'spoon-type of fork' (or vice versa). The fun about sporks is
that they are *both* (or at least that is my pretension). Hm…
remod:
>It sounds odd to have a fu'ivla for borrowing a word from Lojban itself! :)
Yeah. But there seem to be precedents, or at least one:
http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/sorpeka How accepted that is, I don'ŧ
know. It took me a little getting used to, but I think it is a nice
idea, frankly. I recall someone arguing in favour of calling those (or
all fu'ivla?) 'zi'evla' rather than 'fu'ivla'.
>What about borrowing it as a cmevla? {.spork.}
Possible, but a bit clumsy, isn't it? Also, why 'spork' (and not
'gefl' or whatever)?
Cordially,
iesk