From nessus@free.fr Sun Dec 08 03:05:25 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 08 Dec 2002 03:05:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-out-3.wanadoo.fr ([193.252.19.233] helo=mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18KzFR-0001tH-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 03:05:22 -0800 Received: from mel-rta9.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.69) by mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr (6.7.010) id 3DEF1C6F001D3761 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 8 Dec 2002 12:04:50 +0100 Received: from tanj (80.9.201.129) by mel-rta9.wanadoo.fr (6.7.010) id 3DF0DEAF00090730 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 8 Dec 2002 12:04:50 +0100 Message-ID: <003b01c29ea9$9f62a920$81c90950@tanj> From: "Lionel Vidal" To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021206223513.03a4fec0@pop.east.cox.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021207155737.00aa5b30@pop.east.cox.net> Subject: [lojban] Re: cmegadri valfendi preti Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 12:02:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-archive-position: 3286 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: nessus@free.fr Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Nora LeChevalier: > At 11:15 AM 12/7/02 -0500, John Cowan wrote: > >I would actually like to see the byfy nail down the definition of Type >> 4s, > >saying "They take these forms and no others" rather than the current > >negative definition: "They take whatever forms are left after gismu/ > >cmavo compounds/lujvo/Type 3s/rafsi fu'ivla have been removed." > > Especially since the definition in CLL may be broken. It says type IV's > can't be any combination of cmavo, gismu and lujvo; but it never says (at > least I can't find it) that it can't be a combination of cmavo and shorter > fu'ivla! Very nice! I strongly support the idea to clarify that definition, and maybe also the whole status of section 16, as "experimental" may be not appropriate any more. e.g. will a text that uses that "experimental" feature be declared conformant (not that I really support that kind of recently proposed classification, but if it is going to be official, I feel it should answer such questions, or may it has already?) -- Lionel -- Lionel