From rob@twcny.rr.com Tue Dec 12 13:50:30 2000
Return-Path: <rob@twcny.rr.com>
X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 12 Dec 2000 21:50:29 -0000
Received: (qmail 57244 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2000 21:50:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Dec 2000 21:50:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.146) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Dec 2000 21:50:26 -0000
Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0 [24.92.226.74]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA17980 for <lojban@egroups.com>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:46:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from riff ([24.161.104.50]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for <lojban@egroups.com>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:46:08 -0500
Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.20 #1 (Debian)) id 145xJC-0000nE-00 for <lojban@egroups.com>; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:50:02 -0500
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:50:02 -0500
To: lojban@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] fu'ivla tarmi
Message-ID: <20001212165002.B2817@twcny.rr.com>
Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com
References: <Pine.BSI.3.95.1001211082539.16632B-100000@locke.ccil.org> <00121211423801.09168@neofelis>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <00121211423801.09168@neofelis>; from phma@oltronics.net on Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 11:32:00AM -0500
X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com
From: Rob Speer <rob@twcny.rr.com>

On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 11:32:00AM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> CVC/CVCV: yes

Is that really possible? That breaks apart into a gismu form (CVC/CV) and a
cmavo form (CV). Is that allowable provided that the CVC/CV part isn't a gismu?

--
la rabspir.


