Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA21189 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Fri, 30 Sep 1994 16:51:52 -0400 Message-Id: <199409302051.AA21189@nfs1.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4951; Fri, 30 Sep 94 16:51:29 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6323; Fri, 30 Sep 1994 15:37:29 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 20:34:16 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: The lujvo-making algorithm X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: (Your message of Thu, 29 Sep 94 21:25:17 D.) Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Fri Sep 30 16:51:56 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu 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