From bpfk-list+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDEkJvmBBoEalRjlw@googlegroups.com Tue Oct 26 05:23:47 2010 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PAiZ6-00009E-Ey; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:23:47 -0700 Received: by wwb34 with SMTP id 34sf3279066wwb.16 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:23:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=HV+7F9rYtbmx48MhaKiivzSMpceHiRPDahb5XtHFXJA=; b=X1/8uFomakED1PPCNqdvK4umapvcmLlDRZd3L6QfeX/I2FqHpco8gNWndysVwZGc6n JMby+QslTzo7+ND1iMKOW+NgvdmDuqCgmbzgI25yCp7pNYMqG+neBQKK7CsBH2yav2OM tCGefXjvXkFUq4L/gEHS8xdLdH2qgPKOg5ldI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=FTZNWmLxzItbS37aiOJupOBa4p/1h2h6/viaRpdgt/QUPgrkb6tcKDjAKRX4+WRaHt ZsX0oJfVUhvbC2TBl4eMe5ohHAmJ24+G8wRSn8QSuzBM02UhPd6HtAkRLtVU0zp2ilxs 2JC9tg8UtCFKLYfJYEwil6Fe8F8mctbJP5Hag= Received: by 10.216.12.7 with SMTP id 7mr261303wey.26.1288095812182; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:23:32 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.208.4 with SMTP id p4ls3209974weo.2.p; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:23:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.180.11 with SMTP id i11mr395007wem.9.1288095810934; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.180.11 with SMTP id i11mr395006wem.9.1288095810895; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f171.google.com (mail-wy0-f171.google.com [74.125.82.171]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id r4si2495979wec.14.2010.10.26.05.23.29; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:23:29 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.171; Received: by mail-wy0-f171.google.com with SMTP id 39so4232898wyb.30 for ; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:23:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.147.145 with SMTP id l17mr6530773wbv.183.1288095809467; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:23:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.32.140 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:23:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201010260117.28780.phma@phma.optus.nu> References: <201010260117.28780.phma@phma.optus.nu> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:23:29 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] type-3 fu'ivla with different kinds of rafsi From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.171 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 2:17 AM, Pierre Abbat wrote: > According to the Book, a type-3 fu'ivla can be made with a rafsi of form CCV, > CVC, CVCC, or CCVC. Or even CVV. It doesn't say anything different for CCV and CVV, only that they may not be safe: "It is only safe to use a 4-letter rafsi; short rafsi sometimes produce invalid fu'ivla." And then later: "Alternatively, if a CVC-form short rafsi is available it can be used instead of the long rafsi." So at the very least it discourages the use of CCV- and CVV-. > AFAIK, some of us (including me) consider fu'ivla of the > form CCVrCV... or CCVnrV... to be of type 4. Looking through jbovlaste, I > found one of that form: "plargoni", which means not some kind of planner but > a geranium. There's another one, "turdunu" (bullroarer, from some Aboriginal > language), which I made up originally as "turndunu" but changed > because "turndunu" is a type-3. jbofi'e considers "plargoni" to be of type 4. > Should CCV rafsi be disallowed in type-3 fu'ivla? Both CCV and CVV. > Also, it should be stated clearly that if a type-3 fu'ivla can be interpreted > as starting with a CVC or CVCC rafsi, it is interpreted as starting with a > CVCC rafsi. Otherwise some combinations of gismu and foreign part cannot be > turned into a type-3 fu'ivla. I would require the body of the fu'ivla (the part after the hyphen) to start with a valid initial, and then that kind of ambiguity can never arise. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.