rafsi fu'ivla

Fu'ivla of the form CCVVCV, which would obtain 5-letter CCVVC rafsi, under an experimental proposal in the Book. They were proposed for cultural fu'ivla, but with the note that if they turn out to work, they could be used for type 4 fu'ivla (I'd even call them type 5 fu'ivla because the fact that they have rafsi makes them significantly different.)

All type-3 fu'ivla ending in a single vowel, and many type-4 fu'ivla such as those of form CVVC/CVCV (e.g. bauksita, bauxite) can also be given rafsi. The rule is: Remove the final vowel and try to resolve what's left into a string of rafsi, all three-letter except possibly for the last which may be four-letter, and possibly with an 'r' inserted after the first if it is CVV (or 'n' if the next letter is 'r'). If this fails, then remove the first letter and try to resolve the remainder into a string of rafsi, all three-letter except possibly for the last which may be four-letter. If this fails, and the fu'ivla begins with a consonant and ends with a single vowel, then the result of removing the final vowel is its rafsi.

A good thought, but that could never be parsed easily until we can figure out which word forms are fu'ivla and prove it. The morphology is complex enough already. --rab.spir

Are these rafsi meant to be used only in the first position of a lujvo? The book gives tci'ilykemcantutra as an example. Now, naltci'ile is a valid fu'ivla. Is naltci'ilykemcantutra to be interpreted as naltci'il-y-kem-can-tutra? Could we use nalytci'ilykemcantutra for nal-y-tci'il-y-kem-can-tutra? --xorxes

  • Correct. These can be used anywhere in the lujvo. The Book's proposal cannot be used in final position, thus {cagyglauka} "barn owl" and {nalytci'ile} are valid under my proposal but not the Book's. The lujvo that have to be modified under my proposal are those that have a rafsi preceding the fu'ivla rafsi without a 'y' and a rafsi following it; a 'y' must be inserted. --phma