Subject: [lojban] Re: cmegadri valfendi preti

From: "Lionel Vidal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 12:02:45 +0100

Nora LeChevalier:
> At 11:15 AM 12/7/02 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> >I would actually like to see the byfy nail down the definition of Type
>> 4s,
> >saying "They take these forms and no others" rather than the current
> >negative definition: "They take whatever forms are left after gismu/
> >cmavo compounds/lujvo/Type 3s/rafsi fu'ivla have been removed."
>
> Especially since the definition in CLL may be broken. It says type IV's
> can't be any combination of cmavo, gismu and lujvo; but it never says (at
> least I can't find it) that it can't be a combination of cmavo and shorter
> fu'ivla!

Very nice! I strongly support the idea to clarify that definition, and maybe
also the whole status of section 16, as "experimental" may be not
appropriate any more. e.g. will a text that uses that "experimental" feature
be declared conformant (not that I really support that kind of recently
proposed classification, but if it is going to be official, I feel it should
answer such questions, or may it has already?)

-- Lionel

-- Lionel