The example is missing.

I typically would prefer something like relraukemfu'ivla or
reltcitykemfu'ivla, since these decompose in a more logically intuitive
way for me (and the grouping is correct, not to mention that it gives some
sense of exactly what 2 has to do with it all). However, I figure that
people will eventually adopt this word as the standard. Given that
leeway, if there was one thing that I would like, it would be that the
grouping was made explicitly to be 2+fu'ivla: relkemfu'ivla.

Even though the syntax is wrong, I actually kind of suspect that a
contemporary (to the current culture) Lojban speaker will interpret
fu'ivla to be the basic word, which has "two-" tacked onto it, rather
than understanding it as a relfu'i valsi (whatever that is).

Comment #2: Re: Some notes

Wuzzy (Mon Jan 13 08:57:13 2014)

krtisfranks wrote: > The example is missing. This is not true. > I typically would prefer something like relraukemfu'ivla or > reltcitykemfu'ivla, since these decompose in a more logically intuitive > way for me (and the grouping is correct, not to mention that it gives some > sense of exactly what 2 has to do with it all). However, I figure that > people will eventually adopt this word as the standard. Given that > leeway, if there was one thing that I would like, it would be that the > grouping was made explicitly to be 2+fu'ivla: relkemfu'ivla. Feel free to write synonymous definitions. Those could peacefully co-exist with “relfu'ivla”. Nobody is hindering you. > Even though the syntax is wrong, I actually kind of suspect that a > contemporary (to the current culture) Lojban speaker will interpret > fu'ivla to be the basic word, which has "two-" tacked onto it, rather > than understanding it as a relfu'i valsi (whatever that is). Well, dropping a “ke” is common practice and also officially endorsed by the Reference Grammar. The main motivation behind dropping some rafsi is for shortness. Dropping a “ke” is done if one doesn’t think the other possible interpretations make sense. I also explicitly marked all 4 words as jargon.

Comment #3: Re: Some notes Curtis W Franks (Tue Jan 14 07:34:19 2014) Wuzzy wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > The example is missing. > This is not true. > > > I typically would prefer something like relraukemfu'ivla or > > reltcitykemfu'ivla, since these decompose in a more logically > intuitive > > way for me (and the grouping is correct, not to mention that it gives > some > > sense of exactly what 2 has to do with it all). However, I figure that > > people will eventually adopt this word as the standard. Given that > > leeway, if there was one thing that I would like, it would be that the > > grouping was made explicitly to be 2+fu'ivla: relkemfu'ivla. > Feel free to write synonymous definitions. Those could peacefully co-exist > with “relfu'ivla”. Nobody is hindering you. > > > Even though the syntax is wrong, I actually kind of suspect that a > > contemporary (to the current culture) Lojban speaker will interpret > > fu'ivla to be the basic word, which has "two-" tacked onto it, rather > > than understanding it as a relfu'i valsi (whatever that is). > Well, dropping a “ke” is common practice and also officially endorsed > by the Reference Grammar. > > The main motivation behind dropping some rafsi is for shortness. Dropping > a “ke” is done if one doesn’t think the other possible > interpretations make sense. > > I also explicitly marked all 4 words as jargon. I am not hating on the word! That is why I said "Some notes", rather than "Opposing arguments", lol. I certainly believe in synonyms. But I am not really sure that there is much worth in establishing them, since (as you pointed out) there is little room for confusion, the word and concept are both jargon-ish, and Zipf will reduce their length anyway. I will hold off on that for now. I just wanted to put some commentary out there. (I still do not see the examples, but I now suspect that it is just me.) Comment #4: Re: Some notes Wuzzy (Tue Jan 14 14:22:34 2014) > (I still do not see the examples, but I now suspect that it is just me.) The example is on the top of the page, rather than part of the definition.