From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Sun May 25 16:56:30 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 60797 invoked from network); 25 May 2003 23:56:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 May 2003 23:56:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 May 2003 23:56:30 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19K5Lq-0004tK-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 25 May 2003 16:56:30 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19K5Lc-0004t0-00; Sun, 25 May 2003 16:56:16 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 25 May 2003 16:56:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41904.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.155]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19K5LS-0004sn-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 25 May 2003 16:56:06 -0700 Message-ID: <20030525235535.54549.qmail@web41904.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.69.5.249] by web41904.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 25 May 2003 16:55:35 PDT Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 16:55:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [lojban] Re: emotions To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20030525231259.GA10234@allusion.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 5393 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 19873 la djorden cusku di'e > > > > > I think this all rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of lojban > > > > > word classes. People like to think about gismu, cmavo and lujvo. > > > > > But it's actually brivla, cmavo and cmene. [...] > > cmavo is not a syntactic class, it is a morphological class. > > It is also a class of syntactic classes. (And as you hopefully can > tell, that is to what I was refering). Then you were wrong. The preference for gismu is for morphological, not for syntactical reasons. > > Hmm... {parji} doesn't seem to limit any increase in future rafsi > > availability, because par, paj, pai, pa'i are all already taken. > [...] > > It takes the "parj" rafsi. But there is no shortage of those. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com