[lojban-beginners] Re: rafsi and FAhA's

[adam@cec.wustl.edu]

On Fri, 12 May 2006, c k wrote:

> coi rodo
>
>  I noticed that:
>
>  trixe rix ti'e  FAhA ti'a
>
>  Why didn't they make the rafsi for trixe simply {ti'a}?

The rafsi for a gismu can only contain letters from the gismu.  So {trixe}
couldn't possibly have {ti'a} as a rafsi.  A more interstest question is why
{ti'e} isn't the FAhA for {trixe} (instead, it's a hearsay evidential,
evidently from {tinra}).  Swapping {ti'e} and {ti'a} would seem to provide
better mnemonics for both, but it's far too late to be changing things like
that.


>  Here's another one:
>
>  zunle zul         FAhA zu'a

Same as above.  {zu'a} can't possibly be a rafsi for {zunle}.

>  pritu (no rafsi)  FAhA ri'u
>
>  Why didn't they just let pritu have {ri'u} as a rafsi as well?  For
>  example, with nenri both the rafsi and FAhA are {ne'i}.

Apparently it was thought that {rinju} was more deserving of the {ri'u} rafsi
than {pritu}.  Since rafsi space is pretty tight, you really can't have rafsi
for everything, so sometimes you don't get what you want.
--
Adam Lopresto
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

Java: write once, debug everywhere.