From iad@MATH.BAS.BG Fri Dec 01 23:27:13 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: iad@math.bas.bg X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 2 Dec 2000 07:27:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 43817 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2000 07:27:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Dec 2000 07:27:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lnd.internet-bg.net) (212.124.64.2) by mta2 with SMTP; 2 Dec 2000 07:27:11 -0000 Received: from math.bas.bg (ppp66.internet-bg.net [212.124.66.66]) by lnd.internet-bg.net (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id JAA32733 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 09:29:22 +0200 Message-ID: <3A28A49B.76270585@math.bas.bg> Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 09:28:27 +0200 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: zoi gy. Good Morning! .gy. References: <52.41e7e38.275978cf@aol.com> <9098op+7065@eGroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Ivan A Derzhanski EWC wrote: > On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:29:45 -0000, "David Scriven" > wrote: > [Re: cercoi = morning-deep] > >Hmm... so why doesn't "coico'o" mean "deep goodbye"? > > {cercoi} has the form of a lujvo, {coico'o} does not. > {coi} is a rafsi in the first but of selma'o COI in the second. > The difference between the two is that a lujvo must have > a consonant pair in the first five letters. Perhaps more to the point, lujvo are made of rafsi, and cmavo are not rafsi, although 2/3 of all rafsi look exactly like cmavo. You can't use a cmavo in a lujvo as if it were a rafsi; those few cmavo that can appear in compounds have special rafsi forms ({sel} for {se}, {nar} for {na'e}, etc.), and {coi} and {co'o} are not among them. --Ivan