X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Message-ID: <34D783AD.501EA7DD@locke.ccil.org> Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 15:53:01 -0500 From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lojban List Subject: Re: Classes of cmavo References: <199802031940.OAA27670@locke.ccil.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From-Space-Date: Tue Feb 03 15:53:03 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - la .and. cusku di'e > > No, it's a morphological one. Cmavo are of CV['[V]] form, or > > certain expanded forms, but in any case with only one C. > > Brivla invariably have more than one C. > > That seems to be more a phonological condition. Well, no. Phonologically, "'" is a consonant, but it is not a C (a morphological term). > I am sure it is the > most robust definition, but I doubt that it echoes most people's > intuitions about the essence of cmavohood. Doubtless. > BTW, can cmavo be used as cmene? I know I could licitly be {la rocta} > (la rosta sounds like I am an opera diva), Not so clear. In my view, one may not introduce new gismu into the standard language, even when they are used for names: a complete Lojban parser would be entitled to report "rosta" and "rocta" as errors. AFAIK this is not definitively settled, though. > but could I be, say, la fo`o`o, Yes, because the minute you introduce an experimental cmavo, you are outside the standard language, and extended syntax may be in effect. > or la dai? Definitely not. This string is ungrammatical, because it contains only standard cmavo and can't be parsed by the standard syntax. (To be precise, "dai" is attached as an indicator to "la", and then there's no name to parse at all.) > And what is the status of hybrids like "smi`i" (Smithy), "ma`iu" > (Matthew), "Aga`a" (Agatha)? Are they valid lojban words? "ma'iu" is an experimental cmavo: see above. ".aga'a" is the compound cmavo ".a ga'a", and so ungrammatical as a name. "smi'i" would be valid iff it were a valid fu'ivla, but it trivially fails the "slinku'i test": "pu smi'i" becomes the lujvo "pusmi'i", and lujvo have precedence over fu'ivla, so "smi'i" is not a Lojban word of any kind. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (FW 16.5)