From cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN Tue Feb 11 08:49:21 1992
Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN>
Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19)
	id <m0lDxrM-0001a9C@snark.thyrsus.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 92 08:49 EST
Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91)
	id AA23502; Tue, 11 Feb 92 07:58:09 EST
Received: from rutgers.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP 
	(5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA04402; Tue, 11 Feb 92 07:45:49 -0500
Received: from cbmvax.UUCP by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) with UUCP 
	id AA01034; Tue, 11 Feb 92 07:10:25 EST
Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91)
	id AA17439; Tue, 11 Feb 92 06:13:01 EST
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (via uunet.UU.NET) by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP 
	(5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA12702; Tue, 11 Feb 92 05:09:03 -0500
Message-Id: <9202111009.AA12702@relay2.UU.NET>
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 1143; Tue, 11 Feb 92 05:07:53 EST
Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 1845; Tue, 11 Feb 92 05:06:39 EST
Date:         Tue, 11 Feb 1992 09:31:59 GMT
Reply-To: CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!C.J.Fine>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!LOJBAN>
From: CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!C.J.Fine>
Subject:      separating brivla
X-To:         cortesi@INFORMIX.com
X-Cc:         Lojban list <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
In-Reply-To:  <no.id>; from "David Cortesi" at Feb 6, 92 12:18 pm
Status: RO

Dave:
>
>
> la jan. coun. pu spuda mi lu
>         la deiv. kortesis. cusku di'e
>                 to'i sectuca sa'a toi
> li'u
> .i mi ckire do zu'o do ciksi le piro rafsi zo du
> .i ra'unai mi bacru le mi secmene ta'i lu la deiv. korteizis. li'u

I'm not at all happy about you running the SE onto the front of the
BRIVLA. The one place where the spoken/written isomorphism of lojban is
a little strained is in identifying brivla - the criteria for
distinguishing them in speech and writing, while (I believe)
demonstrably isomorphic, are different - stress vs. word-breaks. Thus
"sectuca" and "secmene" are confusing. Of course you can use the rafsi
instead of the cmavo: "selctuca" and "selcmene" (I haven't checked that
those CCC's are allowed, but they seem OK to me).
                        kolin
                                c.j.fine@bradford.ac.uk