Wuzzy wrote:
> “pen” comes from “penmi” and “cku” from “cusku”.
> pemni is not pensi.

I know. Hence the notes.

>
> But most importantly: No “contraction” is needed, just use the
correct
> rafsi.

I intentionally didn't.

> pensi has the short rafsi “pei” and “pes”.
> This would make “peisku” a reasonable lujvo.

I know.

Comment #3: Re: Badly chosen rafsi

Wuzzy (Fri Jan 16 22:49:32 2015)

What's the point? peisku is already there, the definition is basically the same. pensku seems to be redundant, also misleading because of its rafsi. Also, why intentionally abusing the meaning of rafsi? I cannot see any good reason for abusing the system here, especially since this word adds nothing new.

Comment #4: Re: Badly chosen rafsi Lorenzo Von Matterhorn (Fri Jan 16 23:14:05 2015) Wuzzy wrote: > What's the point? Testing the waters. Comment #5: Re: Badly chosen rafsi Wuzzy (Fri Jan 16 23:33:01 2015) Maybe I don't know what you are up to and what your goals are, but have you asked the mailing list before you start to intentionally coin questionable/weird lujvo? ;-) I am sure this is going to be a controversial thing. Comment #6: Re: Badly chosen rafsi Lorenzo Von Matterhorn (Fri Jan 16 23:38:48 2015) Wuzzy wrote: > Maybe I don't know what you are up to and what your goals are, but have > you asked the mailing list before you start to intentionally coin > questionable/weird lujvo? ;-) Just this one lujvo. > I am sure this is going to be a controversial thing. It is very controversial. I expect to get flamed and insulted, as I've already been. :) Comment #7: Re: Badly chosen rafsi Alex Burka (Sat Jan 17 00:15:45 2015) selpahi wrote: > Wuzzy wrote: > > Maybe I don't know what you are up to and what your goals are, but have > > you asked the mailing list before you start to intentionally coin > > questionable/weird lujvo? ;-) > > Just this one lujvo. > > > I am sure this is going to be a controversial thing. > > It is very controversial. I expect to get flamed and insulted, as I've > already been. :) Well, I wish I agreed that this was good idea, but anyway I upvoted pensku back into positives because I can't wait to see where this goes. Let's not attack anyone for their ideas! Comment #8: Re: Badly chosen rafsi Lorenzo Von Matterhorn (Sat Jan 17 00:17:44 2015) durka42 wrote: > Well, I wish I agreed that this was good idea, but anyway I upvoted > pensku back into positives because I can't wait to see where this goes. > Let's not attack anyone for their ideas! Thanks. I'm only trying to get a discussion going, no more, no less. Comment #9: Re: Badly chosen rafsi Wuzzy (Sat Jan 17 00:44:45 2015) Selpa'i still has not made his intentions clear. Selpa'i still has not brought a single argument here defending the practise of intentionally breaking the rafsi meaning. Pensku is redundant and misleading. Being there “to test the waters”, this word certainly has no place in a printed dictionary. And this is the last thing I want to say about this on Jbovlaste, please go to the mailing list if you still insist on this word or want to discuss this in detail (jbovlaste is not really well suited for long discussions). Comment #10: Re: Badly chosen rafsi Lorenzo Von Matterhorn (Sat Jan 17 00:49:17 2015) Wuzzy wrote: > Selpa'i still has not made his intentions clear. > Selpa'i still has not brought a single argument here defending the > practise of intentionally breaking the rafsi meaning. > Pensku is redundant and misleading. Being there “to test the waters”, > this word certainly has no place in a printed dictionary. (You can use that argument when we get to making a printed dictionary, and then we'll have to erase a lot more than just this one word) > > And this is the last thing I want to say about this on Jbovlaste, please > go to the mailing list if you still insist on this word (I'm not here to "insist" on anything. Although technically everyone is allowed to define words as they wish) or want to discuss > this in detail (jbovlaste is not really well suited for long discussions). I didn't intend to discuss this here; there is already a discussion going on on IRC (and it's by far not the first one about this topic). Others are discussing it, and that's the whole point. Comment #11: Re: Badly chosen rafsi Alex Burka (Sat Jan 17 00:56:34 2015) > > I didn't intend to discuss this here; there is already a discussion going > on on IRC (and it's by far not the first one about this topic). Others are > discussing it, and that's the whole point. ta'i ma do sa'a'a'a'anji .i .oi xo drata cu cmene do vau .u'i