> 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
> > way for me (and the grouping is correct, not to mention that it gives
> > sense of exactly what 2 has to do with it all). However, I figure
> > 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
> 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,
> > than understanding it as a relfu'i valsi (whatever that is).
> Well, dropping a “ke” is common practice and also officially
> by the Reference Grammar.
> The main motivation behind dropping some rafsi is for shortness.
> 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.)