Subject: morphology again

From: Cyril Slobin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:50:00 +0300 (MSK)

coi rodo

A new series of morphology questions:

1. In The Reference Grammar (at least online version - I don't have a
printed book), Chapter 4 "Morphology", John Cowan writes:

> It is possible to have fu'ivla like ``spa'i'' that are five letters
> long, but they must have ``'''; no gismu contains ``'''."

But {spa'i} fails slinku'i test - cf. {bespa'i}. Is it an error or I
have misunderstood something?

2. I do not understand exact meaning of following rule:

> All fu'ivla: [...] must not be gismu or lujvo, or any combination of
> cmavo, gismu, and lujvo; furthermore, a fu'ivla with a CV cmavo joined
> to the front of it must not have the form of a lujvo (the so-called
> ``slinku'i test'');

Are we talking about real lujvo made of real rafsi, or just about
vovel-consonsnt patterns? Eg. can {becfe'e} be a fu'ivla? {becfe'e}
looks like a lujvo, but neither {bec} nor {fe'e} rafsi exists.

3. Is {anta} a valid fu'ivla? If not, why?

4. The same questions for {aunta}.

5. In general, are 4-or-5-letter fu'ivla possible?

co'o mi'e kir. noi denpa .a'o lo danfu .a'u

-- 
Cyril Slobin <[email-masked]>