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 m0t5Ei1-0000ZOC; Tue, 17 Oct 95 18:17 EET
Message-Id: <m0t5Ei1-0000ZOC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id F027596C ; Tue, 17 Oct 1995 17:17:45 +0100
Date:         Tue, 17 Oct 1995 10:21:21 -0400
Reply-To:     John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Subject:      Re: rafsi of cmavo
X-To:         Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  <199510141244.IAA28174@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Oct 14,
              95 01:42:57 pm
Content-Length: 315
Lines: 11

la .and. cusku di'e

> 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}?

Yes.

--
John Cowan                                      cowan@ccil.org
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.