From rspeer@MIT.EDU Mon Oct 13 15:32:34 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:32:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu ([18.7.21.83]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1A9BEp-0007O2-6U for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:32:27 -0700 Received: from central-city-carrier-station.mit.edu (CENTRAL-CITY-CARRIER-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.7.72]) by pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h9DMWNOj009111 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:32:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.86]) by central-city-carrier-station.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h9DMNDga014641 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:23:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from torg.mit.edu (TORG.MIT.EDU [18.208.0.57]) ) by melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h9DMNDjW013705 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:23:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rob by torg.mit.edu with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1A9B5q-00045D-00 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:23:10 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:23:10 -0400 From: Rob Speer To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: larger brodV - what do you think Message-ID: <20031013222310.GB15605@mit.edu> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <3F8B0F8D.4050506@udm.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-archive-position: 6433 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rspeer@MIT.EDU Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:58:15PM -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote: > Well, there's za'e. Too bad za'e doesn't have a rafsi; it would be pretty > handy for that. (Actually, za'e doesn't seem to be assigned as a rafsi to > anything.) Or you could go the type 3 fu'ivla route, and prefix your > words with brodr-, which would pretty well mark them as nonportable, while > giving you a large space of legal words. And as far as I can tell, it > would be perfectly baseline compliant, and pretty easily understandable. That is a nice extension - you could get a whole lot of words simply of the form brodrfu, brodrba, etc. Of course, the brodr- part still gets repetitive, and you can't get rafsi from them. -- mu'o mi'e rab.spir