From bpfk-list+bncCIyTjrtpENHIoeYEGgTIVAsI@googlegroups.com Wed Oct 27 10:41:55 2010 Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PBA0U-0002V0-Ef; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:41:55 -0700 Received: by ywk9 with SMTP id 9sf1103420ywk.16 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:41:44 -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:date:from:to:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent:sender :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-disposition; bh=udAdQvshufwfl2lGvzA1AHGVMW0Lad/zLS/cn3BLpFw=; b=nCTnfkyykHifJSDCUaracPvji9tbA34HhmOBX7pGr594hcTclcmkO9hH77TLzKJFFi i/jATohabbwF8ufHg49bjlQ4hZsxvKMOTnZKDBaUZi8iOC+w7383/L2HChunlzt9QvrL VEkO56w2rJ3YLfwWVACG0CauzaQ5XDzaoRxf8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent:sender:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-disposition; b=CzBUsZLFTvLaarFjKBksiqYp4OBTmFU29/NNCh3fy6H3unm24wAXPcId3rriwNzJiR zKVL+tw+3iWEJav7hksId2U//p1uX+crAgafrHGaXFECCC0YtYWgl1nQBwvRMzRxh/cn +1cyylGTXXc4Zt4m7AWPagK4k1sKbWQXDXDvg= Received: by 10.90.155.19 with SMTP id c19mr92028age.51.1288201298012; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:41:38 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.123.203 with SMTP id q11ls886368ibr.2.p; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:41:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.192.73 with SMTP id dp9mr2431570ibb.16.1288201297249; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:41:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.192.73 with SMTP id dp9mr2431568ibb.16.1288201297229; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:41:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from earth.ccil.org (earth.ccil.org [192.190.237.11]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id j25si69857ibb.0.2010.10.27.10.41.37; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:41:37 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of cowan@ccil.org designates 192.190.237.11 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.190.237.11; Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PBA0G-00054T-NW for bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:41:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:41:36 -0400 From: John Cowan To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [bpfk] type-3 fu'ivla with different kinds of rafsi Message-ID: <20101027174136.GD5643@mercury.ccil.org> References: <201010260117.28780.phma@phma.optus.nu> <201010260927.37640.phma@phma.optus.nu> <201010270951.35522.phma@phma.optus.nu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201010270951.35522.phma@phma.optus.nu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: cowan@ccil.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of cowan@ccil.org designates 192.190.237.11 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=cowan@ccil.org 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: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Pierre Abbat scripsit: > I think that anything that *looks* like a type-3 should *be* a type-3, I can live with that if you confine the definition of "type 3" to 4-letter rafsi, because crunchy consonant clusters CCRC are fairly rare in natlangs. Adding another rule to see whether a proposed type-4 collides with a type-3 that has a 3-letter rafsi strikes me as excessively complicated; type-4 fu'ivla are hard enough to generate and validate as it is. > Also two > type-3 fu'ivla formed with different rafsi of the same gismu and the same > foreign part, such as "fiprgado" and "finprgado", should be the same word, Bah. Not worth it. I'd sooner redefine "djarspageti" as a type 4. > BTW, I'd say "sparganio". I think letting CiV and CuV into fu'ivla is a bad idea. Part of the reason we banned them in rafsi (and consequently in lujvo) was to prevent them from disappearing into mere palatalization and labialization of the preceding C. > > There can be no guaranteed analysis of a fu'ivla: it's any > > brivla-shaped word that is not a gismu, lujvo, or slinku'i. The point > > of the type-3 rules is simply to help someone reliably build a fu'ivla > > and not wind up with any of the other word forms. > > Since one can follow the rules with CVV or CCV and get slinku'i or lujvo such > as "sparklematsi" or "naurboi", fu'ivla beginning with CVV or CCV should be > removed from type 3 and the rules rewritten accordingly. The Book already warns that the type-3 rules aren't reliable with 3-letter rafsi. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan I must confess that I have very little notion of what [s. 4 of the British Trade Marks Act, 1938] is intended to convey, and particularly the sentence of 253 words, as I make them, which constitutes sub-section 1. I doubt if the entire statute book could be successfully searched for a sentence of equal length which is of more fuliginous obscurity. --MacKinnon LJ, 1940 -- 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.