Page:CLL v1.1.pdf/76

The Complete Lojban Language A few smaller but historically important cultures:


 * {| class="wikitable"

|- | latmo | Latin/Roman |- | srito | Sanskrit |- | xebro | Hebrew/Israeli/Jewish |- | xelso | Greek (from «Hellas») |}

Major world religions:


 * {| class="wikitable"

|- | budjo | Buddhist |- | dadjo | Taoist |- | muslo | Islamic/Moslem |- | xriso | Christian |}

A few terms that cover multiple groups of the above:


 * {| class="wikitable"

|- | jegvo | Jehovist (Judeo-Christian-Moslem) |- | semto | Semitic |- | slovo | Slavic |- | xispo | Hispanic (New World Spanish) |}

4.16 rafsi fu'ivla: a proposal
The list of cultures represented by gismu, given in Section 4.15 (p. 73), is unavoidably controversial. Much time has been spent debating whether this or that culture “deserves a gismu” or “must languish in fu'ivla space”. To help defuse this argument, a last-minute proposal was made when this book was already substantially complete. I have added it here with experimental status: it is not yet a standard part of Lojban, since all its implications have not been tested in open debate, and it affects a part of the language (lujvo-making) that has long been stable, but is known to be fragile in the face of small changes. (Many attempts were made to add general mechanisms for making lujvo that contained fu'ivla, but all failed on obvious or obscure counterexamples; finally the general zei mechanism was devised instead.)

The first part of the proposal is uncontroversial and involves no change to the language mechanisms. All valid Type 4 fu'ivla of the form CCVVCV would be reserved for cultural brivla analogous to those described in Section 4.15 (p. 73). For example,


 * Example 4.75
 * tci'ile
 * Chilean

is of the appropriate form, and passes all tests required of a Stage 4 fu'ivla. No two fu'ivla of this form would be allowed to coexist if they differed only in the final vowel; this rule was applied to gismu, but does not apply to other fu'ivla or to lujvo.

The second, and fully experimental, part of the proposal is to allow rafsi to be formed from these cultural fu'ivla by removing the final vowel and treating the result as a 4-letter rafsi (although it would contain five letters, not four). These rafsi could then be used on a par with all other rafsi in forming lujvo. The tanru


 * Example 4.76
 * {| class="wikitable"

|- style="font-style: italic;" | tci'ile || ke || canre || tutra |- style="font-weight: bold;" | Chilean || type-of-( || sand || territory) |}
 * Chilean desert

could be represented by the lujvo


 * Example 4.77
 * tci'ilykemcantutra

which is an illegal word in standard Lojban, but a valid lujvo under this proposal. There would be no short rafsi or 5-letter rafsi assigned to any fu'ivla, so no fu'ivla could appear as the last element of a lujvo.