Message-ID: <A48849B31C98424CBB31A5E6C7D091E60230C96E@wobsem03.de.gedas-grp>
From: "Newton, Philip" <Philip.Newton@gedas-onsite.de>
To: "'lojban-beginners@lojban.org'" <lojban-beginners@lojban.org>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Difficulties and frustrations
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 18:30:10 +0100 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Content-Length: 979

la JEsikas. cu cusku di'e
> 
> la filip. cu cusku di'e
> 
> >counter-examples: {bloti condi rotsu}
>
> Yes. I wonder what justifies those gismu having three short rafsi?

Hysterical raisins, as usual.

TTBOMK, the story goes something like this: gismu used to have different
rafsi. Then at one point, people decided to change rafsi (to optimise them?)
- the Great Rafsi Reallocation (or something like that - GRR). They looked
at existing usage to see which gismu had been used in which position (so
that a gismu that's used nearly only in lujvo-final position, for example,
can get a rafsi ending in a vowel so that it can continue to do so, etc.).
They also looked at which rafsi had been used for gismu with multiple rafsi,
to try to keep existing usage valid.

I believe those three ended up with three rafsi each because of prior usage
of each of the three possible rafsi, or something like that.

Does someone know the story better? xorxes? camgusmis?

mu'o mi'e .filip.