From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Mar 17 10:44:47 2000 Received: (qmail 28219 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2000 18:45:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Mar 2000 18:45:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy.cais.net) (199.0.216.101) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 17 Mar 2000 18:45:07 -0000 Received: from bob (dynamic79.cl7.cais.net [205.177.20.79]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA28559 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:44:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000317132556.00b66140@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:43:29 -0500 To: lojban@onelist.com Subject: Re: [lojban] morphology again In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-eGroups-From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 06:50 PM 03/17/2000 +0300, Cyril Slobin wrote: >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? I'd call it an error. One reason few people should be making type IV fu'ivla at this point is that even the best of us regularly make slinkui test errors. Note that this text does not occur in the section on fu'ivla itself. >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. Vowel-consonant patterns (it says "form of a lujvo", and not an actual lujvo word). It is theoretically possible that post baseline there will be new gismu and/or rafsi, in which case such a fu'ivla would be (mis)understood as a lujvo. >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? I think these are OK (and therefore such words are possible), but even I do not consider myself proficient in making Type IV fu'ivla. lojbab ---- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org (newly updated!)