This is an ugly lujvo, using two experimental rafsi and there might even be
a third hidden one, perhaps it should "really" be guglynomyzamgri. But
there needs to be a way to distinguish one Google Group from another.
snustu might be more semantically correct, but loses the association with
the name.

Comment #2: Re: I know I know

Wuzzy (Tue Jul 14 07:41:29 2015)

spheniscine wrote: > This is an ugly lujvo, using two experimental rafsi and there might even be > a third hidden one, perhaps it should "really" be guglynomyzamgri. But > there needs to be a way to distinguish one Google Group from another. > snustu might be more semantically correct, but loses the association with > the name. girngugle - or - gugyl zei snustu PS: pe'a has rafsi "pev", it could also be

Comment #3: Re: I know I know Jonathan (Tue Jul 14 09:27:15 2015) Part of the problem is that I've already "defined" la guglygri (cf http://mw.lojban.org/papri/brivycme ) to refer to Google Groups, so the related word should retain some sort of similarity. And yeah I know about -pev-. I kinda like -zam- for specificity though. My thinking is that all lujvo that *begins* with -zam- can be free assignments for jargon words, either using cei or via contextual explanation, while lujvo that *contains* -zam- indicate usage of that jargon word in the mainstream.