From thinkit8@lycos.com Fri Nov 30 13:59:03 2001
Return-Path: <thinkit8@lycos.com>
X-Sender: thinkit8@lycos.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 30 Nov 2001 21:59:02 -0000
Received: (qmail 96157 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2001 21:59:02 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171)
  by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2001 21:59:02 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n35.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.85)
  by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2001 21:59:03 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: thinkit8@lycos.com
Received: from [10.1.10.69] by n35.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Nov 2001 21:59:02 -0000
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 21:58:57 -0000
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: morphology
Message-ID: <9u8vf1+b093@eGroups.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 366
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 24.5.121.32
From: thinkit8@lycos.com
X-Yahoo-Profile: thinkit41
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 12413

is it true that the lojban morphology is exaustively proven?  that 
is, can it be shown that when following the morphology rules, audio 
visual isomorphism is assured?  i was under the impression that it 
wasn't, and this was what was holding up cultural fu'ivla.

furthurmore, can it be proven within reasonable limits, such as not 
allowing fu'ivla?