From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Jun 27 10:49:22 2009
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69)	(envelope-from <nobody@digitalkingdom.org>)	id 1MKc1i-0006wh-Ar	for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:49:22 -0700
Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.123])	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)	(envelope-from <phma@phma.optus.nu>)	id 1MKc1e-0006vh-JV	for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:49:22 -0700
Received: from chausie ([71.75.215.96]) by cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com          with ESMTP          id <20090627174911417.PVLL20969@cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com>          for <lojban-beginners@lojban.org>;          Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:49:11 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])	by chausie (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCE4E607C	for <lojban-beginners@lojban.org>; Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:49:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu>
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Dictionary output
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:49:07 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405)
References: <d1a.45b19ab8.377182f8@wmconnect.com> <c207fc200906270638k22eb4f4co838613030b7e7e10@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c207fc200906270638k22eb4f4co838613030b7e7e10@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200906271349.08719.phma@phma.optus.nu>
X-archive-position: 1888
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 Saturday 27 June 2009 09:38:09 Johan Pretorius wrote:
> I appear to have found an ambiguity:
> >       Word: {*dei*}
> >       Type: cmavo
> > Gloss Word: {this utterance}
>
>       Word: {djedi}
>
> >       Type: gismu
> > Gloss Word: {full day}
> >      rafsi: dje *dei*
>
> Am I right in surmising that the rules of morphology will be such that a
> rafsi can never be confused for a cmavo?

Yes. The rules have some corner cases, such as "deiskrima", which is a fu'ivla 
because "skrima" is a slinku'i, but there "dei" is not a rafsi 
because "deiskrima" is not a lujvo.

Pierre