From richard@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com Mon Nov 27 14:49:55 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: richard@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 27 Nov 2000 22:49:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 76452 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2000 22:49:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 27 Nov 2000 22:49:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net) (195.40.1.44) by mta2 with SMTP; 27 Nov 2000 22:49:50 -0000 Received: from rrbcurnow.freeuk.com (tnt-9-79.easynet.co.uk [195.40.198.79]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 694FCF8AB7 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:49:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from richard by rrbcurnow.freeuk.com with local (Exim 2.02 #2) id 140WWN-00001v-00 for lojban@egroups.com; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:13:11 +0000 Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:13:11 +0000 To: Lojban List Subject: cmavo prefixed onto type IV fu'ivla : to split or not to split? Message-ID: <20001127221311.B111@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com> Reply-To: Richard Curnow Mail-Followup-To: Lojban List Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i-nntp From: Richard Curnow If the word 'lastamina' is encountered in Lojban text, which of these ways is it supposed to be parsed ? lastamina : single type IV fu'ivla la stamina : cmavo + type IV fu'ivla or something else? My gut feeling is it must be the 2nd reading; otherwise, how would they be distinguished in spoken Lojban? In which case, I think this eliminates a further class of possible fu'ivla - those that split into a cmavo + shorter fu'ivla. (I've just picked an example of the CCVCVCV class of words, which I believe are type IV fu'ivla according to my reading of the book. BTW There's no intention to imply we should have this coining!!) -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard P. Curnow rpc@myself.com Weston-super-Mare United Kingdom http://go.to/richard.curnow/