Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qqnno-00005XC; Fri, 30 Sep 94 21:39 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3006; Fri, 30 Sep 94 21:39:42 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3005; Fri, 30 Sep 1994 21:39:42 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9629; Fri, 30 Sep 1994 20:36:43 +0100 Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 20:34:16 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: The lujvo-making algorithm To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu In-Reply-To: (Your message of Thu, 29 Sep 94 21:25:17 D.) Content-Length: 561 Lines: 13 Erik: > Should sa'urmi'e (sarcu minde) not be sarcyminde, for example? vi'ecpe > (vitke cpedu) vitkycpe? You get more similarity without increasing the time > it takes to say them (or by increasing it a tiny amount). I agree with these preferences, but it is my understanding that these different allmorphic variants of the lujvo are grammatically the same word: that is, sahurmihe & sarcyminde are in free variation, & the speaker chooses one over the other according to taste. Certainly such a situation will stop us arguing about which we prefer. ---- And