Return-Path: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@vms.dc.LSOFT.COM Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id CAA15414 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 02:13:00 +0200 Message-Id: <199601170013.CAA15414@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 683C3CED ; Wed, 17 Jan 1996 1:13:00 +0100 Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 22:10:16 -0300 Reply-To: Paulo Barreto Sender: Lojban list From: Paulo Barreto Subject: Re: TECH QUERY: variant fu'ivla X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1032 Lines: 28 cu'u la djan. >A parallel situation exists in type 3 fu'ivla (those made with gismu-based >prefixes): either a four-letter rafsi or a CCV rafsi can be used as the >prefix (CVC and CVV rafsi aren't safe): I think you mean either a four-letter rafsi or a CVC rafsi, and that CCV and CVV aren't safe: {pa dja,r,ki} -> {pad-jarki} >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". > >Comments? Needless to say (at least to John, as we have just talked about this :-), I'm completely favorable. I also suggest the term "canonical fu'ivla" for type 3, as this is the safest form, and in practice the preferred one. co'o mi'e paulos. ni'o P.S.: > "ricrxacere" and "tricrxacere" .ui You used the latin ablative to form the fu'ivla! Paulo S.L.M. Barreto -- Software Analyst *** PGP public key available on known keyservers *** e'osai ko sarji la lojban