From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri May 12 09:49:06 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 12 May 2006 09:52:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Feap8-000609-G6 for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 09:49:06 -0700 Received: from express.cec.wustl.edu ([128.252.21.16]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Feap6-000601-M9 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 12 May 2006 09:49:06 -0700 Received: from hive.cec.wustl.edu (hive.cec.wustl.edu [128.252.21.14]) by express.cec.wustl.edu (8.13.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id k4CGn20Y003359 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 12 May 2006 11:49:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: from hive.cec.wustl.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hive.cec.wustl.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k4CGn2FM001576; Fri, 12 May 2006 11:49:02 -0500 Received: from localhost (adam@localhost) by hive.cec.wustl.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) with ESMTP id k4CGn2WM001573; Fri, 12 May 2006 11:49:02 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: hive.cec.wustl.edu: adam owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 11:49:02 -0500 (CDT) From: adam@cec.wustl.edu To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: rafsi and FAhA's In-Reply-To: <20060512154703.29965.qmail@web36410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: References: <20060512154703.29965.qmail@web36410.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-archive-position: 3196 X-Approved-By: jkominek@miranda.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: adam@cec.wustl.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Fri, 12 May 2006, c k wrote: > coi rodo > > I noticed that: > > trixe rix ti'e FAhA ti'a > > Why didn't they make the rafsi for trixe simply {ti'a}? The rafsi for a gismu can only contain letters from the gismu. So {trixe} couldn't possibly have {ti'a} as a rafsi. A more interstest question is why {ti'e} isn't the FAhA for {trixe} (instead, it's a hearsay evidential, evidently from {tinra}). Swapping {ti'e} and {ti'a} would seem to provide better mnemonics for both, but it's far too late to be changing things like that. > Here's another one: > > zunle zul FAhA zu'a Same as above. {zu'a} can't possibly be a rafsi for {zunle}. > pritu (no rafsi) FAhA ri'u > > Why didn't they just let pritu have {ri'u} as a rafsi as well? For > example, with nenri both the rafsi and FAhA are {ne'i}. Apparently it was thought that {rinju} was more deserving of the {ri'u} rafsi than {pritu}. Since rafsi space is pretty tight, you really can't have rafsi for everything, so sometimes you don't get what you want. -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/ Java: write once, debug everywhere.