From jcowan@reutershealth.com Tue Nov 28 10:46:58 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 28 Nov 2000 18:46:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 97979 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2000 18:46:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Nov 2000 18:46:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.reutershealth.com) (204.243.9.36) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Nov 2000 18:46:57 -0000 Received: from reutershealth.com (IDENT:cowan@[192.168.3.11]) by mail.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26342; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:48:02 -0500 (EST) Sender: cowan@mail.reutershealth.com Message-ID: <3A23FD79.9182A8E4@reutershealth.com> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:46:17 -0500 Organization: Reuters Health Information X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.16-22 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Curnow Cc: Lojban List Subject: Re: [lojban] cmavo prefixed onto type IV fu'ivla : to split or not to split? References: <20001127221311.B111@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: John Cowan Richard Curnow wrote: > 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. This is clearly correct. -- There is / one art || John Cowan no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein