[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] cmavo prefixed onto type IV fu'ivla : to split or not to split?

To: Richard Curnow <rpc@myself.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmavo prefixed onto type IV fu'ivla : to split or not to split?
From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:46:17 -0500
Cc: Lojban List <lojban@egroups.com>
Organization: Reuters Health Information
References: <20001127221311.B111@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com>
Sender: cowan@mail.reutershealth.com

Richard Curnow wrote:

> My gut feeling is it must be the 2nd reading; otherwise, how would they
> be distinguished in spoken Lojban?  In which case, I think this
> eliminates a further class of possible fu'ivla - those that split into a
> cmavo + shorter fu'ivla.

This is clearly correct.

-- 
There is / one art                   || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
no more / no less                    || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things                   || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness                 \\ -- Piet Hein

References:
- cmavo prefixed onto type IV fu'ivla : to split or not to split?
  - From: Richard Curnow <richard@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com>

Prev by Date: zoi gy. Good Morning! .gy.
Next by Date: Re: [lojban] cmavo prefixed onto type IV fu'ivla : to split or not to split?
Previous by thread: cmavo prefixed onto type IV fu'ivla : to split or not to split?
Next by thread: Re: [lojban] cmavo prefixed onto type IV fu'ivla : to split or not to split?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread