Message-Id: <199601170041.TAA02036@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Tue, 16 Jan 1996 22:10:16 -0300
Reply-To: Paulo Barreto <pbarreto@UNISYS.COM.BR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Paulo Barreto <pbarreto@UNISYS.COM.BR>
Subject:      Re: TECH QUERY: variant fu'ivla
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: OR
Content-Length: 1032

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