From cowan@ccil.org Tue Nov 28 20:05:49 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@locke.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 04:05:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 43894 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 04:05:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 04:05:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO locke.ccil.org) (192.190.237.102) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 04:05:48 -0000 Received: from localhost (cowan@localhost) by locke.ccil.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA25608; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:26:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:26:41 -0500 (EST) To: Richard Curnow Cc: Lojban List Subject: Re: [lojban] Two more type IV fu'ivla questions In-Reply-To: <20001128221146.A241@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Richard Curnow wrote: > 1. In the online version of the Ref. Grammar there is a statement > > It is possible to have fu'ivla like ``spa'i'' that are five letters > long, > > yet doesn't spa'i fail the slinku'i test, because (for example) baspa'i > would be a valid lujvo (I leave the meaning to the reader's imagination > :-) ) So is the first statement wrong? It sure does, and "spa'i" is not valid. > 2. Does Lojban make any use at all of CCV as a word on its own (e.g. > spa)? No. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter