Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI,@SEARN.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0oycET-0000PYC; Sun, 14 Nov 93 09:50 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 8029; Sun, 14 Nov 93 09:51:06 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8028; Sun, 14 Nov 1993 09:51:05 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0823; Sun, 14 Nov 1993 08:50:16 +0100 Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1993 02:48:18 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: more Eaton, anyone? X-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1027 Lines: 23 #urgency ... Urgency to me would have to have some kind of vajni in its definition, not necessarily sarcu JL> > #> A single word for "douanier" would be bargu'ekrabe'itekykurji JL> > #I think you need more glue to hold that monster together. JL> > Actually, I think you don't --- and I think that's a big problem with the JL> > morphology algorithm; we expect ourselves to supply that glue. I have JL> > proposed making the glue requirements the same for all syllables, rather JL> > than them being dispensed with after the second, but Lojbab was against i JL> --More-- JL> JL> But then how do you distinguish it from {bargu'e krabe'i tekykurji}? I JL> guess that if you are careful where you place secondary stresses, it is JL> possible. I don't care either way, since hopefully, such words will be JL> rare. A secondary stress is not a primary stress. It should be distinctly weaker than the primary stress as perceived by the listener, or indeed the morphology algorithm breaks down - and on much simpler words. lojbab