From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:53:37 2010
Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Received: (qmail 1913 invoked from network); 19 Sep 1997 13:52:02 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6)
  by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 19 Sep 1997 13:52:02 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <2.68883161@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 15:51:51 +0100
Date:         Fri, 19 Sep 1997 14:48:12 BST
Reply-To:     Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Morphology
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 456
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <UauUBKhvp1B.A.Zg.x10kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

> But it is forbidden to stress a cmavo syllable before a gismu unless you
> put a compulsory pause after the cmavo, so strong disambiguation is
> maintained.

Is that right?  In fact, is it stronger in that before gismu or lujvo there
must be a pause?  How about cmene?

> > "lo RE spa JI pci" and this can be either
> > "lo RE spaJIPci" with a stressed cmavo or "lo REspa JIPci" as two gismu.

So it must be "lo RE. spaJIPci" v. "lo REspa JIPci".  Cool.