[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Two more type IV fu'ivla questions
At 10:11 PM 11/28/2000 +0000, Richard Curnow wrote:
1. In the online version of the Ref. Grammar there is a statement
It is possible to have fu'ivla like ``spa'i'' that are five letters
long,
yet doesn't spa'i fail the slinku'i test, because (for example) baspa'i
would be a valid lujvo (I leave the meaning to the reader's imagination
:-) ) So is the first statement wrong?
Nora agrees that it fails slinku'i. This is one reason why we have so
strongly frowned on people lightly making up Type IV fu'ivla. We don't
have ANYONE who can say without a doubt that a word will NOT fail slinku'i
for an arbitrary word (we have some forms that seem pretty good, like the
proposed fu'ivla gismu form)
2. Does Lojban make any use at all of CCV as a word on its own (e.g.
spa)?
No. The shortest word ever proposed was "iglu", but I think we found a
situation where that would fail as well (iglu zbasu -> .i gluzbasu too
easily and I think there was another situation that was even worse in not
relying on careful stress to resolve.)
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org