Message-Id: <199510150505.BAA27473@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Sun, 15 Oct 1995 01:03:47 -0400
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: rafsi of cmavo
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

>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

That is correct.  In most of these cases, assigning them a rafsi was an
afterthought decided at the final retuning - we had rafsi available and went thr

through the cmavo looking for ones that might be usable in
lujvo that fit the
available rafsi (mostly CVCs).  The list I came up with was fairly extensive,
but then in the ensuing deabte, i was outvoted and most of the rafsi
assignments for cmavo were not added.  The ones you see are those that
survived review.  In almost all cases their assignment needed to be
justified by at least one or two examples.

Since cmavo are nominally not content words, to put one in final position,
the modifed one, seems a bit odd.  But since cmavo CAN be used to modify
adverbially or possessively, it makes sense for some to be able to be
used as modifiers.

lojbab