From - Mon Oct 07 09:43:38 1996 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Date: Mon Oct 07 09:43:38 1996 Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Organization: Quetzal Subject: Re: lujvo morphology To: lojban%cuvmb.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu X-UIDL: ea7193a80364e3bf9959d0a6fa009d2c Status: U X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1467 Message-ID: R.M. Uittenbogaard wrote: >....In one of the ckafybarja texts found on an ftp site, > the word "mlitoinandu" appears. I wondered how a Lojban-speaker would know > that this is intended to be one single lujvo: since the stressed syllable is > the penultimate one, I would expect this word to fall apart into > "mlitoi nandu" which is a tanru and so might have a distinct meaning from > the meaning intended. I'm not sure, but I think that was an error -- it should be "mlitoirnandu". > Actually, I would find it a much better solution if all the vowel-final > rafsi were abandoned altogether. This can be done by eliminating all the > rafsi for gismu, and only assign CVC type rafsi, and only to cmavo. The I personally have only learned a few of the rafsi, and I generally make lujvo with the 4-letter forms and -y-. Not because I oppose rafsi but just because it's too much to memorize. I pick up more of them as I go along. This is the sort of thing that usage is likely to decide regardless of LLG's wishes -- I bet rafsi that are not used productively or in common words will become rare things that people have to look up. But certainly there's no problem with rafsi like "-gau" for gasnu, "-pre" for prenu, etc. They're short and convenient and better than attatching the 4/5 letter form. -- ____ Chris Bogart \ / http://www.quetzal.com Boulder, CO \/ cbogart@quetzal.com