From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sat Oct 28 04:11:52 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_1); 28 Oct 2000 11:11:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 20412 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2000 11:11:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Oct 2000 11:11:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ck.egroups.com) (10.1.2.83) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Oct 2000 11:11:52 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.2.51] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 Oct 2000 11:11:49 -0000 Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:11:45 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: months names? Message-ID: <8tec9h+49gm@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <8tebgn+ctlh@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Length: 635 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79 From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" --- In lojban@egroups.com, "Alfred W. Tueting (T=FCting)" wrote: > Now I'm wondering if that is okay! (since there is no rafsi "mas" of {mas= =3D=0D ti} - nor "cac" for {cacra}!). > Would {la dauma'i} be better (although without a consonant ending)? I'm aware of the fact that for cmene no correct "rafsi" are needed! But doe= =3D=0D sn't the component "mas" (temple!!) or "cac" lead astray? > or create a lujvo with the drawback that cmavo {dau/fei/gai} are not perm= =3D=0D itted: {pavma'i} up to {sovma'i} could work, but then?=20 > {pavno?ma'i} I'm aware too that the semantics were different because there is *no ordin= =3D=0D al* .aulun.