Re: [jbovlaste] berbere, berberi

[Pierre Abbat <phma@bezitopo.org>]

On Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:24:19 Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> Let's imagine that we have a brivla. Let it be {selseli}.
> 
> Now imagine that you see a rafsi {selsely-}. Is it a rafsi of {selseli}? Or
> may be there is another brivla, {selsela}? Or may be there is no {selsela}
> but it'll be added later, may be in 50 years making old texts with
> {selsely-} ambiguous.
> 
> If we allow brivla that differ in the last vowel only then we should delete
> that proposal of fu'ivla rafsi from CLL. This is not human-friendly.

{selsely-} is not a rafsi. It is the concatenation of two {sel}, which is the 
rafsi of {se}, and the interfix {-y-}. There is therefore no problem with 
having {selseli} and {selsela}.

{krataig}, on the other hand, is a fu'ivla rafsi. {krataigo} is a fu'ivla, and 
neither {krataig} nor {rataig} can be decomposed into any number of raf3 
followed by 0 or 1 raf4 or gismu. Therefore we can't have {krataigo} and 
{krataige} meaning different things.

Pierre
-- 
La sal en el mar es más que en la sangre.
Le sel dans la mer est plus que dans le sang.


_______________________________________________
jbovlaste mailing list
jbovlaste@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste