Let's create a word: Wasabi

[la .gusek.]

Hi,

A while back I felt the need the loan "wasabi" and "sushi" into Lojban. So I created these two words (they're both in jbovlaste now):

cidjrsuci: x₁ is a quantity of sushi consisting of rice x₂ and ingredients x₃
stanruasabi: x₁ is wasabi (Wasabia japonica) in form x₂ of variety x₃

"Sushi" was straightforward. It had been used before, and it's the most logical form of "sushi" as a stage-3 fu'ivla.

"Wasabi" was more tricky. I chosed "stani" (stem) though, since this is the part you actually eat (it's not a root nor a rhizome). "ua" is legal in Lojban, and is the actual diphtong "w" refers to in japanese. The problem though, is that I mistakenly created a stage-4 fu'ivla which obviously never was my intention (since I forgot to add an initial consonant).

So, I'm asking you to help create it! How would you like the word? What initial consonant do you feel makes most sense/seems most natural?

[Pierre Abbat]

On Friday, November 21, 2014 02:22:37 la .gusek. wrote:
> "Wasabi" was more tricky. I chosed "stani" (stem) though, since this is the
> part you actually eat (it's not a root nor a rhizome). "ua" is legal in
> Lojban, and is the actual diphtong "w" refers to in japanese. The problem
> though, is that I mistakenly created a stage-4 fu'ivla which obviously
> never was my intention (since I forgot to add an initial consonant).
>
> So, I'm asking you to help create it! How would you like the word? What
> initial consonant do you feel makes most sense/seems most natural?

I'd say "stanrvasabi" or "stanrvuasabi".

Pierre
--
The gostak pelled at the fostin lutt for darfs for her martle plave.
The darfs had smibbed, the lutt was thale, and the pilter had nothing snave.

[la .gusek.]

Thank you for your answer!

I've considered them but I have some problems:

• stanrvasabi: The word "vasabi" seems more like a loan word of a loan word than a loan word (from Japanese). "Wasabi" has the pronunciation "uasabi" and not "vasabi" in it's original language, and since that is possible in Lojban it seems a shame to modify it (maybe malglico even?).
• stanrvuasabi: "vua" seems difficult to pronounce and distinguish. Is it though? Input here?

[MorphemeAddict]

"vuasabi" would be no more difficult to pronounce than "voilà!". 

stevo

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[la durka]

Are we so sure {stanruasabi} isn't a type-3 fu'ivla? The fu'ivla types are just a convention anyway. I know the Book says the "tail" of a type-3 fu'ivla should start with a consonant, but a glide {ua} is _nearly_ a consonant. Furthermore, syllable analysis (using camxes) gives us {sta,nr,ua,sa,bi} which has that telltale consonantal syllable.

So I say {stanruasabi} is type-3 and fine. What do you think?

mu'o mi'e la durkavore

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, la durka <dur...@gmail.com> wrote:

Are we so sure {stanruasabi} isn't a type-3 fu'ivla? The fu'ivla types are just a convention anyway. I know the Book says the "tail" of a type-3 fu'ivla should start with a consonant, but a glide {ua} is _nearly_ a consonant. Furthermore, syllable analysis (using camxes) gives us {sta,nr,ua,sa,bi} which has that telltale consonantal syllable.

So I say {stanruasabi} is type-3 and fine. What do you think?

As you say, it's just a conventional name, nothing really hinges on that. I agree it makes sense to include such things among type-3. But personally I'd go with a full type-4, maybe "uaxsabi".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[la .gusek.]

Thank you stevo, you've got a point there. Maybe it makes sense to use "v" as initial consonant!

Den fredagen den 21:e november 2014 kl. 20:19:17 UTC+1 skrev la durka:

Are we so sure {stanruasabi} isn't a type-3 fu'ivla? The fu'ivla types are just a convention anyway. I know the Book says the "tail" of a type-3 fu'ivla should start with a consonant, but a glide {ua} is _nearly_ a consonant. Furthermore, syllable analysis (using camxes) gives us {sta,nr,ua,sa,bi} which has that telltale consonantal syllable.

So I say {stanruasabi} is type-3 and fine. What do you think?

mu'o mi'e la durkavore

I say it's problematic and gray enough to motivate the addition of an initial consonant, but maybe I should rethink. "vlatai" does classify it as fu'ivla stage-4 though, and can't decompose it into stem and loan word (as a stage-3). This to me is troublesome. It seems odd to end up with a technical stage-4 that has the form of a stage-3. Either you make a stage-3 properly, or you make a short stage-4.

Den fredagen den 21:e november 2014 kl. 23:05:53 UTC+1 skrev xorxes:

As you say, it's just a conventional name, nothing really hinges on that. I agree it makes sense to include such things among type-3. But personally I'd go with a full type-4, maybe "uaxsabi".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Okay, again maybe I should rethink. Any idea why "vlatai" wasn't programmed to take diphthongs into account this way?

Regarding your recommendation with a full stage-4, I don't agree with that line of thinking (but I get your point). Personally, I find it frustrating to see stage-4:s created directly and have trouble taking them "as seriously" as stage-3:s (I know I shouldn't react this way, but I do). I intuitively respect "sorpeka" much, much more (since it was created out of need and from an existing word), than stage-4:s with no pre-existing need and actual stage-3. I kind of want a stage-3 to exist before hand, and it's usage to motivate the creation of a stage-4. It feels like a "waste" of semantic space as well as unnecessary and risky behaviour (without guaranteeing syntactic non-decomposing).

I don't want to dismiss your view entirely, but I would feel a lot more comfortable with a stage-3 existing before it's shortened into a stage-4. Do you understand what I'm feeling? No offense to those who feel otherwise, truly! Maybe I'm too strict, I don't know...

[Pierre Abbat]

On Friday, November 21, 2014 15:29:14 la .gusek. wrote:
> Okay, again maybe I should rethink. Any idea why "vlatai" wasn't programmed
> to take diphthongs into account this way?

Vlatai was written before there was a precise analysis of what a Lojban
syllable is.

> Regarding your recommendation with a full stage-4, I don't agree with that
> line of thinking (but I get your point). Personally, I find it frustrating
> to see stage-4:s created directly and have trouble taking them "as
> seriously" as stage-3:s (I know I shouldn't react this way, but I do). I
> intuitively respect "sorpeka" much, much more (since it was created out of
> need and from an existing word), than stage-4:s with no pre-existing need
> and actual stage-3. I kind of want a stage-3 to exist before hand, and it's

> usage to *motivate* the creation of a stage-4. It feels like a "waste" of

> semantic space as well as unnecessary and risky behaviour (without
> guaranteeing syntactic non-decomposing).

I don't have any problem with creating stage-4's straight off. I do make
stage-3's when the foreign part is too short (e.g. bakrto), doesn't fit well
into stage-4 shape, or would be ambiguous between two very different things
(e.g. rutrmalpigi, ragrmalpigi). "sorpeka" was shortened from a lujvo, not a
stage-3.

I think that there should be a clear distinction between stage 3 and stage 4.
Once I borrowed a word "turndun" (an Australian noisemaker, also called a
bullroarer). At first I got "turndunu", but that is a stage-3 for some kind of
structure, so I altered it to "turdunu".

Pierre
--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci

[la .gusek.]

Den lördagen den 22:e november 2014 kl. 06:03:27 UTC+1 skrev Pierre Abbat:

Vlatai was written before there was a precise analysis of what a Lojban
syllable is.

Okay, that I didn't know. Then it might make sense to just keep this word (stanruasabi) as is, I guess? Anyone disagree?

I don't have any problem with creating stage-4's straight off. I do make
stage-3's when the foreign part is too short (e.g. bakrto), doesn't fit well
into stage-4 shape, or would be ambiguous between two very different things
(e.g. rutrmalpigi, ragrmalpigi). "sorpeka" was shortened from a lujvo, not a
stage-3.

I know I should probably be more open minded to straigt-to-stage-4 words, but for now I'm hesitant to make them myself. If someone feels the need of a stage-4 from a stage-3 I've created, I hope they can create such a word. I guess I see stage-3 as some kind of necessary intermediate before full loan, in parallel to how it often works in natlangs (original spelling/pronounciation -> [heavy usage] -> full native word).

Yes I'm aware that it's a shortened lujvo, it was just a good example that popped into my mind since I used "sorprekarce" a lot and myself experienced the need for a shortened form in my daily Lojban usage. I would argue that lujvo and stage-3 share a lot of characteristics though, since they both are bound by morphological rules and their form official and controlled.

I think that there should be a clear distinction between stage 3 and stage 4.
Once I borrowed a word "turndun" (an Australian noisemaker, also called a
bullroarer). At first I got "turndunu", but that is a stage-3 for some kind of
structure, so I altered it to "turdunu".

That's indeed quite interesting, I will keep that in mind.

Thank you all. I hope this discussion wasn't offending anyone! I'm currently spending a lot of time daily to try to help expand our dictionary, and I would like to do it as careful and quality controlled as I possibly can.