From phma@oltronics.net Mon Dec 18 06:16:12 2000
Return-Path: <phma@oltronics.net>
X-Sender: phma@oltronics.net
X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 18 Dec 2000 14:16:12 -0000
Received: (qmail 43129 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2000 14:16:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Dec 2000 14:16:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.oltronics.net) (204.213.85.8) by mta1 with SMTP; 18 Dec 2000 14:16:11 -0000
Received: from neofelis (root@localhost) by mail.oltronics.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA29579 for <lojban@egroups.com>; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:16:08 -0500
X-BlackMail: 207.15.133.37, neofelis, <phma@oltronics.net>, 207.15.133.37
X-Authenticated-Timestamp: 09:16:09(EST) on December 18, 2000
To: lojban@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Cultural fu'ivla
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:07:20 -0500
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29.2]
Content-Type: text/plain
References: <Pine.NEB.4.30.0012151626240.10009-100000@erika.sixgirls.org> <0012162022460J.01286@neofelis> <20001218064404.B108@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com>
In-Reply-To: <20001218064404.B108@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <00121809160513.01286@neofelis>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@oltronics.net>

>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 :-)

According to 4.16, it's not baselined, it's an experimental proposal. I don't
agree with reserving CCVVCV for cultural fu'ivla, or making all cultural
fu'ivla be of that form, since most of them don't fit into that form. I think
it should be just another fu'ivla tarmi.

As to rafsi fu'ivla, I don't see why a fu'ivla couldn't fall at the end of a
lujvo, as long as the rafsi preceding it forces the insertion of a 'y' by the
rules. If you can come up with a counterexample, please let me know; maybe it
means that the rules for fu'ivla should be restricted.

phma

