From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Jan 04 09:59:14 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:59:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H2WrY-0005UZ-Pv for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:58:49 -0800 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.173]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H2WrF-0005Tn-20 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:58:48 -0800 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m3so5306089uge for ; Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:58:11 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=nGDfWbAWthLVNnW20rxT/zPut7X6ImKErF0lZacrm3BSrSLMHK4CNZQS7fesG7reY993bZTmwRNU3NWIdY+Ey136STeIwd4ZExSILgeojbZYAaTjWK2TmNDkqcJWQ3wGfsZAXXgDO5G52BxgcohQcgX6/hiCXyqD5F5vr5yYdUs= Received: by 10.82.184.2 with SMTP id h2mr1996918buf.1167933491008; Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:58:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.82.115.20 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Jan 2007 09:58:10 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560701040958x13fadc8xb220fb9693abed24@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 14:58:10 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Regular vs dictionary lujvo In-Reply-To: <3ccac5f10701040724r44dfae9u9480f7dba69c9cb4@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3ccac5f10701040724r44dfae9u9480f7dba69c9cb4@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Score-Int: -24 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-archive-position: 13482 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 1/4/07, Cyril Slobin wrote: > > For the second goal I suggest the following two rules: > 1) Rafsi derived from cmavo is more affixish (has a higher priority) > than rafsi derived from gismu. This might work for some cases, such as tol- or sel- but I don't think it will work for all cmavo with rafsi. For example, I think pav- tends to work more like a gismu. {pavyseljirna} is (a kind of) {seljirna be lo pa mei}, but I would say that {pavgau} is not a kind of {gasnu be lo pa mei} but {x1 gasnu be lo nu x2 pa mei}, "x1 unifies x2" i.e. more like an ordinary gau-lujvo. > 2) Unless the first rule gives an answer, rafsi at the end of lujvo is > more affixish (has a higher priority) than rafsi at te beginning of > lujvo. For example, malgau: {x1 gasnu lo nu x2 mabla}? I tend to agree. In general I think rafsi from gismu should never behave like true prefixes, but unfortunately some of them do seem to. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.