[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban-beginners] Re: welcome and question about brivla recognizing
- To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
- Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: welcome and question about brivla recognizing
- From: "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:43:19 -0300
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=zkfN3HH439WVftEgnPAIwZ2FUCShP6gopyQY5b+7KqE=; b=KBNHoekGAGOYB1Ylly0cG9Gk/U8RYI2KZ2TuZp1ED8LRm4iq6A6TAz3+A3pNvrvsMF sU3m4BZUbKWhKkKkTJ4uBgiSLXWTWdAU1RcIygtNOe2sEX0x8tfw5NBaaY0hxlSWjnFA pnnNuyABqoPZCO2oU00QgtJ9HYLepVN7y38M8=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=WeHBCrqm+sQvgvajOaw1Lu2lsEOcqWq/EzZwMRhpdy4UuM9CicGY+gq3G8jG7vr1v3 uBdT72ZMgrubUrZD4th7Y5FpOzTAmCx4KnMU8TAWQB6viUlQCDUJOWFz7vNw3HP5i+O9 nMTEBEAaTnmrfks97fex8yZane1CXwWFK6pyQ=
- In-reply-to: <48846E55.9050600@poczta.onet.pl>
- References: <4882EF4F.9020509@poczta.onet.pl> <925d17560807201031l25d62a75wcb2c44cc0910863b@mail.gmail.com> <48846E55.9050600@poczta.onet.pl>
- Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
- Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
On 7/21/08, Mateusz Grotek <unoduetre@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
> Oh, sorry, I've reread you post, and i suppose i misunderstood you. Could
> you explain me why exactly do you need to know all rafsi forms in (3) and
> (4).
For (3): to know that "tosmabru" breaks as "to smabru", you need
to recognize that "smabru" consists of two rafsi sma-bru. In contrast,
"tosmaksi" is a brivla and doesn't break, because "smaksi" is not a
lujvo. It cannot be sma-ksi, as "ks" is not a valid initial, so "ksi" is not
a possible rafsi. Also "tosmanku'i" is a valid brivla form, because
"smanku'i" is not a lujvo.
Similarly for (4): "slinku'i" is not valid because "linku'i" is a
string of rafsi:
lin-ku'i. But "slinkupi" is fine, because "linkupi" is not a rafsi string.
mu'o mi'e xorxes