If the cmevla and brivla have been syntactically merged, as implemented by the ilmentufa-parser, I believe the terms must now be redefined.
{cmevla} could remain as is; they still end in a consonant, have mandatory pauses before and after, and are primarily used for names.
As for {brivla}, I believe {lo cmevla ca brivla}. What is used to be known as "Stage 2 fu'ivla" can now be just cmevla; for example, I could say:
{ti .fetutcinis.} (This is fettucine), or {mi citka lo .fetutcinis.} (I eat some fettucine)
In those examples, the cmevla have been divorced from their usual role of "proper nouns", and are basically used the same way a gismu, lujvo, or a zi'evla would. Additionally, they're dead easy to use; any beginner who's been taught how to reformat their name into a cmevla can use tthese.
Of course, like stage-2 fu'ivla before it, this is meant to be only a temporary measure; there are two good reasons to "naturalize" any useful concepts into a lujvo or zi'evla:
- Avoidance of the mandatory pauses; too many cmevla in text will inhibit natural reading.
- The possibility of rigorous definition in resources like jbovlaste, with defined place values; as per the goals of Lojban, each {na'e cmevla brivla} should represent one single concept, and polysemy avoided.
And... yeah. So now we just had a demonstration of the problem: we need a new word for {na'e cmevla brivla}, which differs from {cmevla} both in morphology and in having a rigorously defined place structure. It is the union of the sets {gismu}, {lujvo}, and {zi'evla}. What should it be?
{kauvla}? {mulvla}? {rarvla}? Or something else entirely?