On Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:24:19 Gleki Arxokuna wrote:{selsely-} is not a rafsi. It is the concatenation of two {sel}, which is the
> 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.
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
_______________________________________________ jbovlaste mailing list jbovlaste@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste