From - Tue Dec 17 13:30:23 1996 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Date: Tue Dec 17 13:30:23 1996 Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Re: A challenge X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199612171439.JAA11709@cs.columbia.edu> (message from Don Wiggins on Tue, 17 Dec 1996 13:47:55 GMT) X-UIDL: 11bbedb35b8fbea2692c516e7affec21 Status: U X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1075 Message-ID: >Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 13:47:55 GMT >From: Don Wiggins > >>>I call this a "jalma'o", collide-structure-word or blat-cmavo. > >>I'd call it a ma'ojvo (argh, been WAY too long; does that have to be >>ma'orjvo?): a cmavo compound. > >It is "ma'ojvo" the "jv" means it doesn't fall apart. A "lujvo" is precisely >a Lojbanic word made of rafsi and gismu. The cmavo are words by themselves. Perhaps a tanru would be more appropriate than a lujvo: cmavo lujvo. It's "lujvo" made of cmavo. I know that the definition of lujvo implies that it's comprised of rafsi and not cmavo, but tanru (and lujvo for that matter) are ambiguous and intended for such things. Similarly, if I use "le ma'ojvo" with "le" in front of it, well, it's what I'm describing as one. One can talk, poetically, of a bookcase as a "cukta zdani", even though books probably can't be said to inhabit things (I realize that bookcase is not the obvious meaning of "cukta zdani"). Perhaps "cmavo valsi" or "ma'ovla"? ~mark