From pycyn@aol.com Sat Jul 07 19:11:17 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 8 Jul 2001 02:11:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 47077 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2001 02:11:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Jul 2001 02:11:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m02.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.5) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Jul 2001 02:11:17 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.ac.176856e6 (4584) for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 22:11:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 22:11:09 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Rafsi in cmene To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_ac.176856e6.28791b3d_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_ac.176856e6.28791b3d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/7/2001 7:38:46 PM Central Daylight Time, nicholas@uci.edu writes: > 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... > No. Names are what you call them and no one would call it {vocacr} when {vocac} does as well (though {vocacr} is not a problem for people who have vocalic r's naturally distinct from sloppy schwas). In practice, if not in form, these critters go back to Loglan (and so to before rafsi even), but since they are names, it dosen't matter. --part1_ac.176856e6.28791b3d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/7/2001 7:38:46 PM Central Daylight Time,
nicholas@uci.edu writes:


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...


No.  Names are what you call them and no one would call it {vocacr} when
{vocac} does as well (though {vocacr} is not a problem for people who have
vocalic r's naturally distinct from sloppy schwas).  In practice, if not in
form, these critters go back to Loglan (and so to before rafsi even), but
since they are names, it dosen't matter. --part1_ac.176856e6.28791b3d_boundary--