Re: [bpfk] type-3 fu'ivla with different kinds of rafsi

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:48 AM, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote:
>
> The difference between type-3 and type-4 is relevant to fu'ivla
> construction, not to analysis.   A fu'ivla can look like a type-3
> while in fact being defined as a type-4.  For example, one could read
> "spargani'umi" as a type-3 lujvo for some sort of plant (spati) for
> which "gani'umi" is the Lojbanization, or it could be a type-4 lujvo
> for the genus _Sparganium_, the bur-reeds (which are plants).  If I
> tried harder, I could probably find a similar example with an apparent
> 4-letter rafsi.

You would need a source word with a consonantal syllable. I think
type-4 with consonantal syllables should be avoided.

> There can be no guaranteed analysis of a fu'ivla: it's any
> brivla-shaped word that is not a gismu, lujvo, or slinku'i.  The point
> of the type-3 rules is simply to help someone reliably build a fu'ivla
> and not wind up with any of the other word forms.

But the mere existence of the type-3 rules, plus the fact that pseudo
type-3 are so rare, causes type-3 looking things to be interpreted as
type-3, even if they were no intended to be. Whether that is in fact
an official rule or not doesn't really matter much.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.