From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Wed Jan 17 01:41:38 1996 Received: from vms.dc.lsoft.com (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id BAA07791 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 01:41:30 -0500 Message-Id: <199601170641.BAA07791@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by vms.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 82A6E112 ; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 1:13:45 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 23:47:56 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: TECH QUERY: variant fu'ivla X-To: cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1137 > So far, the Lojban >community hasn't taken a position on whether or not these are to be >taken as equivalent. > >I favor declaring them equivalent: while this limits the theoretical >size of fu'ivla space, it makes for simplicity: you need not remember >whether "cipnrdodo" or "cpirdodo" is the official word for "dodo". At this point I would favor not taking any position, though we can say that this convention has been proposed. There simply have not been enough fu'ivla proposed to make statements/assumptions about conventions (hey I am wary about lujvo/dikyjvo, and we have a LOT more usages). When you consider that officially the type 3 fu'ivla are kind of short-of-conventional in the first place (since we would presume to make a Type 4 fu'ivla for one that got used enough to warrant it), I am even more reluctant to make official rules. When someone actually writes a bunch of fu'ivla AND place structures for them, then we will have some data to analyze. But my efforts to even get a more complete set of cultural fu'ivla, one of the more obvious needs, continues to be stillborn. lojbab