From slobin@ice.ru Fri Mar 17 07:49:44 2000 Received: (qmail 7827 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2000 15:50:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Mar 2000 15:50:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fair.fe.msk.ru) (194.247.147.11) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2000 15:50:03 -0000 Received: from localhost (slobin@localhost) by fair.fe.msk.ru (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with ESMTP id SAA20445 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:50:00 +0300 Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:50:00 +0300 (MSK) X-Sender: slobin@fair.fe.msk.ru To: lojban@onelist.com Subject: morphology again Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-eGroups-From: Cyril Slobin From: Cyril Slobin coi rodo A new series of morphology questions: 1. In The Reference Grammar (at least online version - I don't have a printed book), Chapter 4 "Morphology", John Cowan writes: > It is possible to have fu'ivla like ``spa'i'' that are five letters > long, but they must have ``'''; no gismu contains ``'''." But {spa'i} fails slinku'i test - cf. {bespa'i}. Is it an error or I have misunderstood something? 2. I do not understand exact meaning of following rule: > All fu'ivla: [...] must not be gismu or lujvo, or any combination of > cmavo, gismu, and lujvo; furthermore, a fu'ivla with a CV cmavo joined > to the front of it must not have the form of a lujvo (the so-called > ``slinku'i test''); Are we talking about real lujvo made of real rafsi, or just about vovel-consonsnt patterns? Eg. can {becfe'e} be a fu'ivla? {becfe'e} looks like a lujvo, but neither {bec} nor {fe'e} rafsi exists. 3. Is {anta} a valid fu'ivla? If not, why? 4. The same questions for {aunta}. 5. In general, are 4-or-5-letter fu'ivla possible? co'o mi'e kir. noi denpa .a'o lo danfu .a'u -- Cyril Slobin