From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun May 20 18:08:47 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sun, 20 May 2007 18:08:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HpwOF-0003cE-91 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sun, 20 May 2007 18:08:47 -0700 Received: from phma.optus.nu ([166.82.175.165] helo=ixazon.dynip.com) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HpwOC-0003bv-70 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sun, 20 May 2007 18:08:46 -0700 Received: from chausie (unknown [192.168.7.4]) by ixazon.dynip.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFDE3CE891 for ; Sun, 20 May 2007 21:08:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Pierre Abbat To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: distinction between gismu & cmavo Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 21:08:36 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <2f91285f0705201027w32358e69v3e6093496d67cc5d@mail.gmail.com> <1179685341.465091dda984a@webmail.mail.rice.edu> <23dc8c770705201132s3002172awdee644deeec6343a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <23dc8c770705201132s3002172awdee644deeec6343a@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200705202108.36951.phma@phma.optus.nu> X-Spam-Score: 0.2 X-Spam-Score-Int: 2 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 4553 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: phma@phma.optus.nu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Sunday 20 May 2007 14:32, Karl Naylor wrote: > On 20/05/07, mls1@rice.edu wrote: > > > In any case, as you probably know, you can recognise a gismu by its > > > length and consonant/vowel composition: all gismu are of the form > > > CVCCV or CCVCV, and no non-gismu words are. > > > > So it is not possible for a fu'ivla to "accidentally" have CVCCV or > > CCVCV? > > Ooops, didn't consider that. I guess a Stage 4 fu'ivla may have that > form, I never really bothered with them much because they're so fiddly > and arcane. I wouldn't know to be honest. > > Certainly no cmavo, cmene, lujvo or Stage 3 fu'ivla can have that form. No, a stage 4 fu'ivla may not have form CVCCV or CCVCV, nor may it have the form of a lujvo. It can come close, e.g. {largectremia} "crape myrtle"; {-mia} is not a rafsi because it has the diphthong "ia". {largectremi'a} is a meaningless lujvo. There are five-letter fu'ivla too, such as {jboia} "boa". phma