From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sat Oct 28 04:11:52 2000
Return-Path: <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>
X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_2_1); 28 Oct 2000 11:11:52 -0000
Received: (qmail 20412 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2000 11:11:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 28 Oct 2000 11:11:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ck.egroups.com) (10.1.2.83) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Oct 2000 11:11:52 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de
Received: from [10.1.2.51] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 Oct 2000 11:11:49 -0000
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:11:45 -0000
To: lojban@egroups.com
Subject: Re: months names?
Message-ID: <8tec9h+49gm@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <8tebgn+ctlh@eGroups.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Length: 635
X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster
X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79
From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>

--- In lojban@egroups.com, "Alfred W. Tueting (T=FCting)" <Ti@f...> wrote:

> Now I'm wondering if that is okay! (since there is no rafsi "mas" of {mas=
=3D=0D
ti} - nor "cac" for {cacra}!).
> Would {la dauma'i} be better (although without a consonant ending)?

I'm aware of the fact that for cmene no correct "rafsi" are needed! But doe=
=3D=0D
sn't the component "mas" (temple!!) or "cac" lead astray?

> or create a lujvo with the drawback that cmavo {dau/fei/gai} are not perm=
=3D=0D
itted: {pavma'i} up to {sovma'i} could work, but then?=20
> {pavno?ma'i}

I'm aware too that the semantics were different because there is *no ordin=
=3D=0D
al*

.aulun.