Message-ID: <20061229111722.9j25wb7vyko8ksko@web.mail.umich.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:17:22 -0500
From: alexjm@umich.edu
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: pu'i?
References: <0A4A8D28-8EBF-49B7-8CB8-5E3F225F0F09@mindspring.com>
In-Reply-To: <0A4A8D28-8EBF-49B7-8CB8-5E3F225F0F09@mindspring.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;	format="flowed"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.0.5)
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Content-Length: 1093

Quoting Cortesi <dcortesi@mindspring.com>:

> Something strange to me in the gismu list around line 952,
>
> > pu'i  pus          can and has                               modal  
> > aspect: can and has; demonstrated potential...
>
> and just a few lines later,
>
> > punji puj     pu'i put     x1 (agent) puts/places/sets x2 on/at  > 
> surface/locus x3  ...
>
> Is that not contradictory uses of pu'i? How can it be both a rafsi  
> and a cmavo?

It looks a little confusing in this context, but you will always know 
the difference when you see it in use. A cmavo is always its own word 
(or in a cmavo cluster, which is several cmavo lumped together with no 
written spaces). On the other hand, a rafsi is always part of a lujvo 
and can never appear as its own word.

There are several sets where a CVV word is both a cmavo and a rafsi, 
although many of them have simmilar meanings.

I can see som ambiguity if you have {pu'ibroda} -- can this break into 
both {pu'i broda} and be an alternate for {pujbroda}? Or would we need 
{pu'irbroda} for the second meaning?

mu'o mi'e .aleks.