From nicholas@uci.edu Sat Jul 07 17:22:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: nicholas@uci.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 8 Jul 2001 00:22:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 21878 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2001 00:22:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Jul 2001 00:22:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e4e.oac.uci.edu) (128.200.222.10) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Jul 2001 00:22:47 -0000 Received: from [128.195.186.202] (dialin53a-53.ppp.uci.edu [128.195.186.63]) by e4e.oac.uci.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03466 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 17:22:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: nicholas@e4e.oac.uci.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 17:14:53 -0700 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Rafsi in cmene From: Nick Nicholas Pierre has pointed out to me that cmene like vocac. are misleading for hours, because cac. is not a rafsi of cacra. To be consistent with the other time milestones, this would mean vocacr. instead. 1) Do we want to inflict unpronouncables like vocacr. on our audience? (My take is, why not --- I'm now saying 12-hour time is dispreferred anyway, and vocacr. is not that much more unpronouncable than la .r,l) 2) Is the objection valid? Have we ever explicitly claimed that cmene suffixes of this kind should be rafsi (plus or minus final schwa)? I'm fairly sure these forms originated from Lojban Central... Nick Nicholas, TLG, UCI, USA. nicholas@uci.edu www.opoudjis.net "Most Byzantine historians felt they knew enough to use the optatives correctly; some of them were right." --- Harry Turtledove.