From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Mon May 19 06:04:05 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 19 May 2003 10:15:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41905.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.156]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19HkJA-0007Ay-00 for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Mon, 19 May 2003 06:04:04 -0700 Message-ID: <20030519130333.84671.qmail@web41905.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41905.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 19 May 2003 06:03:33 PDT Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 06:03:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Jorge "Llambías" Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: fu'ivla formation --- is this right? To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org In-Reply-To: <3EC8D494.18659.981387@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 322 X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners la filip cusku di'e > (What is the rule for safe three-letter rafsi? Do they have to be CVC? Yes. > For example, my copy of vlatai calls {djarspageti} a type-4 fu'ivla > rather than parsing it as dja/r/spageti = type-3.) That's right. {djarpitsa} for example is not a valid fu'ivla, because it fails the slinku'i test: {le djarpitsa} -> led-jar-pitsa. {djarspageti} happens to be a valid fu'ivla, but it does not follow type-4 rules. The final consonant of the rafsi is required to provide a crunchy "CrC", which can never appear in a lujvo. Using three letter CVC rafsi can create ambiguity. A type-3 fu'ivla of the form CVCrnC... for example could be understood as coming from CVC-r-nC... or from CVCr-n-C... Similarly for CVCnrC... forms. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com