Re: Classes of cmavo

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

John:
> la .and. cusku di'e
>
> > > 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.
>
> Well, no.  Phonologically, "'" is a consonant, but it is not a
> C (a morphological term).

Since we are being wantonly pedantic, I would still claim that this
is a phonological matter, concerning the possible distribution of
phonemes within a root. It concerns the phonological rather than the
morphological structure of words.

An analogous example is the way in English morpheme-initial /D/ is
restricted to function words, and /D/ in general is found only in
function words or in quasi-inflectional elements.

> > I am sure it is the
> > most robust definition, but I doubt that it echoes most people's
> > intuitions about the essence of cmavohood.
>
> Doubtless.
>
> > BTW, can cmavo be used as cmene? I know I could licitly be {la rocta}
> > (la rosta sounds like I am an opera diva),
>
> Not so clear.  In my view, one may not introduce new gismu into the
> standard language, even when they are used for names: a complete
> Lojban parser would be entitled to report "rosta" and "rocta" as
> errors.  AFAIK this is not definitively settled, though.
>
> > but could I be, say, la fo`o`o,
>
> Yes, because the minute you introduce an experimental cmavo, you
> are outside the standard language, and extended syntax may be in effect.
>
> > or la dai?
>
> Definitely not.  This string is ungrammatical, because it contains
> only standard cmavo and can't be parsed by the standard syntax.
> (To be precise, "dai" is attached as an indicator to "la", and then
> there's no name to parse at all.)
>
> > And what is the status of hybrids like "smi`i" (Smithy), "ma`iu"
> > (Matthew), "Aga`a" (Agatha)? Are they valid lojban words?
>
> "ma'iu" is an experimental cmavo: see above.
>
> ".aga'a" is the compound cmavo ".a ga'a", and so ungrammatical as a name.
>
> "smi'i" would be valid iff it were a valid fu'ivla, but it trivially
> fails the "slinku'i test": "pu smi'i" becomes the lujvo "pusmi'i", and
> lujvo have precedence over fu'ivla, so "smi'i" is not a Lojban
> word of any kind.
>
> --
> John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@ccil.org
>         You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
>         You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
>                 Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (FW 16.5)
>