spheniscine wrote:
> Yes, I have seen pe'ai, but I think zai'e / zi'ai has several
> advantages over it:
>
> 1. Most gismu are meant to have la?c meanings by default. Using simple
> terms like "block", "set", or "group" (or even say, "flying" in Magic the

> Gathering) for a technical, specialized purpose is the realm of jargon,
and
> as such, should receive the unnegated form.
>
> 2. The proposed rafsi is meant as a way to disambiguate if a jargon word
> should "trickle down" to the mainstream, or if several fields that use
the
> same jargon word intersect within a context, causing potential
> polysemy/ambiguity. For example, let's say (zai'e girzu) "group" has
gained
> a very specialized meaning within the context of computers. Then, the
lujvo
> (samzamgri) would then refer unambiguously to this meaning.

1. I was trying to maintain similarity with pe'a. The definition bein
reversed from this one has its advantages, and the very fact that lay speak
is default (if it is, especially with non-gismu brivla) could even be seen
as justification for the unreversed definition as much as the it is for the
reversed one.

2. I am not sure that rafsi are really necessary (why not just make the
lujvo and then tag it with a jargon marker?), but I can imagine in some
cases that it might (maybe an internal jargon marker would make it mean
something different from an external one). In any case, if a rafsi is
desired, pe'ai has options as well: -pep-, -pef-, and -peg- for a start.
I do recognize that marking for jargon within lujvo would be easier in the
reversed definition, so if that is seen as more useful, then the definition
should be reversed.



I really do not care overly much which word is used for this purpose. I
just want a word to exist for it. But st present, the conflicting
definitions for this word make it less than desirable to me.