From rob@twcny.rr.com Sat Sep 01 22:27:31 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@telenet.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 2 Sep 2001 05:27:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 96464 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2001 05:27:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Sep 2001 05:27:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO telenet.net) (204.97.152.225) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Sep 2001 05:27:30 -0000 Received: from riff (ip-209-23-14-24.modem.logical.net [209.23.14.24]) by telenet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA07988 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2001 01:27:28 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15dPmk-0000Ly-00 for ; Sun, 02 Sep 2001 01:27:06 -0400 Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 01:27:05 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] clashes Message-ID: <20010902012705.B1308@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: <0109012338460P.01089@neofelis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0109012338460P.01089@neofelis> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com Sender: Rob Speer From: Rob Speer On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 11:38:46PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote: > I see comments in various pages in the Wiki that some proposed gismu clashes > with some preexisting gismu. For instance, {tango} is said to clash with > {tanko}. I know that similar consonants were checked when making the gimste, > but I don't see why anything but having the same first four letters is a > clash, according to the morphology. The morphology doesn't say anything at all about how to make unofficial gismu. Considering that you're going so far as to make the words gismu instead of type 4 fu'ivla, you might as well pretend the word went through the gismu-making algorithm with all the rest. -- Rob Speer