From lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Fri Aug 09 22:31:23 1996 Received: from punt4.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA13819 ; Fri, 09 Aug 96 22:31:21 BST Received: from punt-4.mail.demon.net by mailstore for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk id 839560658:02145:0; Fri, 09 Aug 96 04:17:38 BST Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu ([128.228.1.2]) by punt-4.mail.demon.net id aa01898; 9 Aug 96 4:17 +0100 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 4647; Thu, 08 Aug 96 23:17:06 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 9983; Thu, 08 Aug 96 23:16:38 EDT Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 23:15:05 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Resolution of compound words X-To: CTGNOLI@IMICILEA.CILEA.IT X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN Message-ID: <839560624.1898.0@cunyvm.cuny.edu> Status: R >What I wonder now is: if rafsi are equivalent in meaning to gismu, >but shorter, why do not use rafsi instead of gismu also for simple >words? E.g., why do not say "bri" instead of "bridi"? Because of the rules for word formation, allowing syllables that are CCV form to be words would require pauses between each such word and the preceding word. CVV form words are already cmavo, and so could not serve as root words in standalone. CVC words would be names. Then there is the additional problem that not all gismu roots have short rafsi, and indeed there are not enough rafsi to cover all the gismu even if optimally distributed. Finally, the two-syllable words have considerably more redundancy in speech than the shorter words, and indeed we avoid certain situations where two gismu might have ended up differing by only a single consonant of the same type-features (i.e. bridi excludes briti as a gismu). One worry that we have about the spoken language once a lot of lujvo are in use is that the language will have insufficient redundancy in spoken environments, because that one-sound-difference prohibition does not apply to lujvo-making, and cmavo already are rather prone to sound collisions in speech. lojbab