Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 07:35:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802041235.HAA01075@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: Classes of cmavo X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: aa386e212a8f3c3a8f95b1da216f1ebd Status: RO X-Mozilla-Status: 8013 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Feb 04 11:56:16 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - John: > 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). Since we are being wantonly pedantic, I would still claim that this is a phonological matter, concerning the possible distribution of phonemes within a root. It concerns the phonological rather than the morphological structure of words. An analogous example is the way in English morpheme-initial /D/ is restricted to function words, and /D/ in general is found only in function words or in quasi-inflectional elements. > > 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) >