From thinkit8@lycos.com Fri Nov 30 13:59:03 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: thinkit8@lycos.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 30 Nov 2001 21:59:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 96157 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2001 21:59:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2001 21:59:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n35.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.85) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2001 21:59:03 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: thinkit8@lycos.com Received: from [10.1.10.69] by n35.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Nov 2001 21:59:02 -0000 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 21:58:57 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: morphology Message-ID: <9u8vf1+b093@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 352 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 24.5.121.32 From: thinkit8@lycos.com X-Yahoo-Profile: thinkit41 is it true that the lojban morphology is exaustively proven? that is, can it be shown that when following the morphology rules, audio visual isomorphism is assured? i was under the impression that it wasn't, and this was what was holding up cultural fu'ivla. furthurmore, can it be proven within reasonable limits, such as not allowing fu'ivla?