Subject: Re: [lojban] Two more type IV fu'ivla questions

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:09:59 -0500

At 10:11 PM 11/28/2000 +0000, 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?

Nora agrees that it fails slinku'i. This is one reason why we have so 
strongly frowned on people lightly making up Type IV fu'ivla. We don't 
have ANYONE who can say without a doubt that a word will NOT fail slinku'i 
for an arbitrary word (we have some forms that seem pretty good, like the 
proposed fu'ivla gismu form)

>2. Does Lojban make any use at all of CCV as a word on its own (e.g.
> spa)?

No. The shortest word ever proposed was "iglu", but I think we found a 
situation where that would fail as well (iglu zbasu -> .i gluzbasu too 
easily and I think there was another situation that was even worse in not 
relying on careful stress to resolve.)

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
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