Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tFYve-0000ZTC; Wed, 15 Nov 95 05:54 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id E97E722E ; Wed, 15 Nov 1995 4:54:30 +0100 Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 22:52:18 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: slinkui X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 797 Lines: 15 And: >As for the slinkui test, I don't see how it's relevant here. Also, I've >never understood the rationale for it. The tosmabru test says if a >string is potentially ambiguous between lujvo and cmavo+lujvo, then the >latter wins. The slinkui test says if a string is potentially ambiguous >between lujvo and cmavo +lujvo, either lujvo is banned. I am confused. No, slinkui is about fu'ivla vs. cmavo+lujvo, and the latter wins. It is trickier because the morphology of fu'ivla is less well-defined, the test is harder to do in your head, and because there is little practice with it (intentionally because of its difficulty) when we do type 3 fu'ivla (which are dominant these days) instead of type 4. We expect that type 4 fu'ivla will eventually start to get assigned and used. lojbab