Received: from localhost ([::1]:49850 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Tyzfj-0004Xa-Kk; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:55:27 -0800 Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.120]:58646) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Tyzfd-0004XT-B2 for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:55:25 -0800 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=LNHkseq9 c=1 sm=0 a=sqYj6zCFaLTNQ95sbP+eeQ==:17 a=W3V8cEvdJLQA:10 a=JFaJvMoBDvMA:10 a=93UUt2rjulAA:10 a=Yr05hP5UdKEA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=JNFw9bs7AAAA:8 a=lpRPLfts4U0A:10 a=QE5ly8Wm5xRpyutkARwA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=sqYj6zCFaLTNQ95sbP+eeQ==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 69.132.98.107 Received: from [69.132.98.107] ([69.132.98.107:58763] helo=leopard.ixazon.lan) by cdptpa-oedge02.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id 7B/21-01431-7DD73015; Sat, 26 Jan 2013 06:55:20 +0000 Received: from caracal.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:8:42:59ca:a0ff:111a:b09b]) by leopard.ixazon.lan (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0131D3EE for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:55:16 -0500 (EST) From: Pierre Abbat To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:55:12 -0500 Message-ID: <2280337.Rh2ZGRfqHJ@caracal> User-Agent: KMail/4.8.5 (Linux/3.2.0-35-generic; KDE/4.8.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / Subject: Re: [jbovlaste] berbere, berberi X-BeenThere: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: jbovlaste@lojban.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Errors-To: jbovlaste-bounces@lojban.org On Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:24:19 Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > Let's imagine that we have a brivla. Let it be {selseli}. > = > Now imagine that you see a rafsi {selsely-}. Is it a rafsi of {selseli}? = Or > may be there is another brivla, {selsela}? Or may be there is no {selsela} > but it'll be added later, may be in 50 years making old texts with > {selsely-} ambiguous. > = > If we allow brivla that differ in the last vowel only then we should dele= te > that proposal of fu'ivla rafsi from CLL. This is not human-friendly. {selsely-} is not a rafsi. It is the concatenation of two {sel}, which is t= he = rafsi of {se}, and the interfix {-y-}. There is therefore no problem with = having {selseli} and {selsela}. {krataig}, on the other hand, is a fu'ivla rafsi. {krataigo} is a fu'ivla, = and = neither {krataig} nor {rataig} can be decomposed into any number of raf3 = followed by 0 or 1 raf4 or gismu. Therefore we can't have {krataigo} and = {krataige} meaning different things. Pierre -- = La sal en el mar es m=E1s que en la sangre. Le sel dans la mer est plus que dans le sang. _______________________________________________ jbovlaste mailing list jbovlaste@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste