From sentto-44114-18043-1039914971-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Sat Dec 14 17:16:46 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 14 Dec 2002 17:16:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from n4.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.88]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18NNOc-0005pn-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Sat, 14 Dec 2002 17:16:42 -0800 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-18043-1039914971-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.200] by n4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Dec 2002 01:16:11 -0000 X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 15 Dec 2002 01:16:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 73380 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2002 01:16:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Dec 2002 01:16:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (208.150.110.21) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Dec 2002 01:16:09 -0000 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id 2385A3C478; Sat, 14 Dec 2002 20:16:08 -0500 (EST) To: X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021214190430.03176d90@pop.east.cox.net> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20021214190430.03176d90@pop.east.cox.net> X-Spamtrap: fesmri@ixazon.dynip.com Message-Id: <0212142016040K.03697@neofelis> From: Pierre Abbat MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 20:16:04 -0500 Subject: [lojban] Re: fu'ivla tarmi preti Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-archive-position: 3554 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: phma@webjockey.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Saturday 14 December 2002 19:12, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > Nora is of the opinion (which I would probably agree with if I thought > about it) that Cowan (and I before him) were not considering fu'ivla when > writing most of the morphology rules, because then as now, fu'ivla were > considered unimportant fill-ins that did not need careful definition (and > indeed such definition was probably impossible). Actually, I think we > thought of fu'ivla as being closer to names in terms of rules than brivla. li'o > >Note that consonant triples or > >larger clusters that are not at the be­ginning of a fu'ivla can be quite > >flexible, as long as all consonant pairs are permissible. There is no need > >to re­strict fu'ivla clusters to permis­sible initial pairs except at the > >beginning. Okay, so fu'ivla can have any length of medial consonant clusters, and {mastststststststaka} is valid. But the specification left out a couple of rules: If removing the initial syllaboid from string S results in a fu'ivla, and the initial syllaboid is a cmavo, then S is not a fu'ivla (e.g. {packankua}, {ickankua}, {raumlongena} are not fu'ivla). If, however, removing the initial syllaboid from S results in a valsrslinku'i, and the initial syllaboid is a cmavo, and S has a consonant cluster in the first five letters (not counting y'y and ybu), then S is a valid word: either the syllaboid is CV, in which case S is a lujvo, or the syllaboid is CVV, CV'V, or all vowels, in which case S is a fu'ivla (e.g. {eskrima}, {fauspa'i}). phma To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/