[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[jbovlaste] Re: fu'ivla for liquors
- To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
- Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: fu'ivla for liquors
- From: Craig Daniel <teucer@pobox.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:43:06 -0500
- Delivery-date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:46:50 -0800
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0+yPoyHCZ41kNsqHOCDOfnnT21yaHdvN3Jqphwvf0gI=; b=IxiI2Fx+JpmFPlcIgNzhzQu0fAjDPClMb1s8BDmO9HDQVmy0TdLQfEGWpaiqcNbkg9 7RGdJYtua7tYkJQqhKCSzqymwFJaUKNphom4ni9QmPK5FV/ffM4px05jUnmnwharJrlc 1nCWMq7JaczvsyGEQnfOodfFKnGF4//+4caBw=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=CieBveTQIwG8gRdI8OXfyrm/rqaXjjQuvFbFghOobS0iqg4pOTFTSFPdHPWXGLV4Av DTMlRcckKPpTErcdIKRArSj5zzvteZ9UR0vvAnKQIf6GOJt9XxMO6pI6Cna/WApaVkTw jUW0BFF1hBo/DuEPKPYk/pOA+J7z34zxcK8iA=
- Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
- In-reply-to: <AANLkTimaG=6RHspdXJ9ZNiw9cCOdF+Q1TJycSbfKQFYq@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <770898.27481.qm@web88001.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <AANLkTime0YRY6=TJM_yAGVMgB4MbCHMN7-9XeYo5j6Ge@mail.gmail.com> <20101123224830.GV8367@nvg.org> <AANLkTi=T007Z4hLFw5GPJ=D=DF04wQn0ygqXfhdgPF95@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimaG=6RHspdXJ9ZNiw9cCOdF+Q1TJycSbfKQFYq@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org
- Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
2010/11/23 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> {uiski} is not a valid lujvo because *-ui- doesn't have rafsi form. So {uiski} is in fact a well-formed type 4 fu'ivla.
>>
>> The first sentence there is true, obviously. The fu'ivla appears to
>> nonetheless fail a sort of backwards slinku'i test, in that ".uiski
>> kabri" falls apart into ".ui skikabri," and "skikabri" is a valid
>> lujvo.
>
> "uiski kabri" is not "ui skikabri" just like "daski kabri" is not "da skikabri".
<snip explanation>
Um, yes. This.
Looks like the major brain fart that set me driving exactly the wrong
direction this evening was not the only one of its kind today.
- mi'e .kreig.