Re: Classes of cmavo

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

John:
> > Either way, I think the essence is that cmavo form a closed class,
> > while cmevla, lujvo and fu`ivla are open classes. The cmavo/nae`e
> > cmavo distinction is more a lexical one than a syntactic one.
>
> No, it's a morphological one.  Cmavo are of CV['[V]] form, or
> certain expanded forms, but in any case with only one C.
> Brivla invariably have more than one C.

That seems to be more a phonological condition. I am sure it is the
most robust definition, but I doubt that it echoes most people's
intuitions about the essence of cmavohood.

BTW, can cmavo be used as cmene? I know I could licitly be {la rocta}
(la rosta sounds like I am an opera diva), but could I be, say, la fo`o`o,
or la dai?

And what is the status of hybrids like "smi`i" (Smithy), "ma`iu"
(Matthew), "Aga`a" (Agatha)? Are they valid lojban words?