Return-Path: <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@BITMAIL.LSOFT.COM>
Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0t45x3-0000ZOC; Sat, 14 Oct 95 14:44 EET
Message-Id: <m0t45x3-0000ZOC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id A7294ADE ; Sat, 14 Oct 1995 13:44:31 +0100
Date:         Sat, 14 Oct 1995 13:42:57 +0100
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      rafsi of cmavo
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 180
Lines: 5

A number of cmavo (e.g. {na, zio, nae, mi}) have only CVC
rafsi. Am I correct in thinking that this means that they
cannot occur lujvo-finally, unless glued on with {zei}?
---
And