A little theorem on a forbiden fu'ivla form

[Paulo Barreto <pbarreto@unisys.com.br>]

Hello, John.

Not long ago I received your response to my comments on the morphology paper.
(Sorry, it's not at hand; I did not fully transferred my mail from the old
address to this one, so I'll quote it by heart).

One question I had made was whether {pra'i} and {spra'i} were considered valid
fu'ivla, as at least one of them is 5 letters long (depending on whether you
count the apostrophe or not). Your opinion was that they are valid, though you
were not quite sure.

However, after some thought one can state that {pra'i} is not valid. In fact
(that's the "theorem"), no fu'ivla can have the form CCV'V due to slinku'i
failure: put any CV cmavo before such a word and you'll get the lujvo-form
sequence
CVCCV'V, which analyzes into CVC-CV'V.

So far I wasn't able to disprove the validity of {spra'i}, or more generally
CC...CV'V fu'ivla.

I have a further question on fu'ivla morphology. Is it possible that a fu'ivla
be stressed on vocalic consonant (as in XRvatska, for instance)?

co'o mi'e paulos.

P.S. What's your opinion on imposing that two "canonical" fu'ivla (made of
rafsi + consonant hyphen + borrowing) differing only in rafsi form (e.g.
tricrnaceru and ricrnaceru) have the same meaning? I had already made this
question, but you don't seem to have expressed your feelings about that...

    Paulo S.L.M. Barreto   --   Software Analyst
*** PGP public key available on known keyservers ***
              e'osai ko sarji la lojban