From richard@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com Sun Dec 17 22:47:07 2000
Return-Path: <richard@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com>
X-Sender: richard@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 18 Dec 2000 06:47:06 -0000
Received: (qmail 24768 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2000 06:47:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 18 Dec 2000 06:47:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO amersham.mail.uk.easynet.net) (195.40.1.45) by mta2 with SMTP; 18 Dec 2000 06:47:05 -0000
Received: from rrbcurnow.freeuk.com (tnt-14-130.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.130]) by amersham.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6BE517791 for <lojban@egroups.com>; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 06:44:44 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from richard by rrbcurnow.freeuk.com with local (Exim 2.02 #2) id 147u1k-00004A-00 for lojban@egroups.com; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 06:44:04 +0000
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 06:44:04 +0000
To: lojban@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Cultural fu'ivla
Message-ID: <20001218064404.B108@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com>
Reply-To: Richard Curnow <rpc@myself.com>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban@egroups.com
References: <Pine.NEB.4.30.0012151626240.10009-100000@erika.sixgirls.org> <0012162022460J.01286@neofelis>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i-nntp
In-Reply-To: <0012162022460J.01286@neofelis>; from phma@oltronics.net on Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 07:04:01PM -0500
From: Richard Curnow <richard@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com>

On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 07:04:01PM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Invent Yourself wrote:
> >Is there a list of cultural/national/language fu'ivla? Should we work on
> >creating one?
> 
> Here are some suggestions:
> 
> magjaro ({madjaro} won't work as the {ma} falls off)
> bolgaro
> labyrusko (a lujvo, and there will be a few others)
> nanslovo

In the Reference Grammar, section 4.16 talks of using fu'ivla of the
form

CCVVCV

for those cultural purposes not covered by the gismu. The corresponding
form

CCVVCy

can then be used as a rafsi to form lujvo.

Is this stuff still considered baselined? In which case Pierre's list
will need transforming into this format. If it's not considered to be
current Lojban any more I'd like to know, as I was going to be building
support for this into the next release of jbofi'e (in terms of the
algorithm to split lujvo into rafsi at least). Clearly this might save
me some work :-)

co'o mi'e ritcyd.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard P. Curnow rpc@myself.com
Weston-super-Mare
United Kingdom http://go.to/richard.curnow/


