From xod@sixgirls.org Tue Dec 12 15:31:12 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@erika.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 12 Dec 2000 23:31:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 27040 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2000 23:31:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Dec 2000 23:31:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO erika.sixgirls.org) (209.208.150.50) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Dec 2000 23:30:49 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by erika.sixgirls.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBCNUmU19777 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:30:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:30:47 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] fu'ivla tarmi In-Reply-To: <20001212231313.D108@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Richard Curnow wrote: > On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 08:26:24AM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > > The rules for valid fu'ivla are known to be incomplete. > > It's clear to me, however, that anything which breaks up is not valid. > > > > I was thinking about this word breaking issue again today, particularly > after the "iglu zbasu" example cited a couple of weeks ago. What > worries me is lujvo of the form CVVCCV followed by a gismu. For (a > contrived) example, the words "ci'ebra zbasu" would be stressed thus if > spoken > > ci'Ebra zbAsu > ^ ^ > +------+---- stress > > but consider how "ci'e brazbasu" could be spoken (given that cmavo can > be arbitrarily stressed) > > ci'E brazbAsu > ^ ^ > +------+---- stress > > i.e. the same! I'm not sure how these two cases can be distinguished in > the spoken language. What am I missing? It seems to me the easiest solution is to forbid stressing cmavo. ----- And if a cat needed a hat? Free enterprise is there for that.