Message-Id: <199608090743.DAA20272@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Thu, 8 Aug 1996 23:15:05 -0400
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: Resolution of compound words
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Content-Length: 1314
Lines: 27

Content-Length: 1283
Lines: 24

Content-Length: 1251
Lines: 21

>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