Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 14:40:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802031940.OAA27670@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: 497dfc2a1a2b4bb7753927f7f9ebfcb1 X-Mozilla-Status: 8013 X-From-Space-Date: Tue Feb 03 15:11:11 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - John: > > Either way, I think the essence is that cmavo form a closed class, > > while cmevla, lujvo and fu`ivla are open classes. The cmavo/nae`e > > cmavo distinction is more a lexical one than a syntactic one. > > 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. I am sure it is the most robust definition, but I doubt that it echoes most people's intuitions about the essence of cmavohood. BTW, can cmavo be used as cmene? I know I could licitly be {la rocta} (la rosta sounds like I am an opera diva), but could I be, say, la fo`o`o, or la dai? And what is the status of hybrids like "smi`i" (Smithy), "ma`iu" (Matthew), "Aga`a" (Agatha)? Are they valid lojban words?