WikiDiscuss

---

> > (1) "It is always legal to use the apostrophe (IPA h) sound in
> > pronouncing a comma."
>
> The rationale for this is that "ae"/"a,e" (for example) is a sequence
> that occurs only in "foreign words", and that a "native-speaker" Lojbanist
> should be able to pronounce it with the nearest "native" analogue,
> namely "a'e". This is not a Loglan hangover as others have speculated,
> since Loglan does not have "'"; you simply have to know which Loglan
> vowel-pairs are diphthongs and which are vowel sequences.
>
> I personally would be quite content if all such "foreign" sequences
> were forbidden altogether. Can someone easily check to see whether we
> have used them in fu'ivla?

So the rule you would favor would be something more like:
"The vowel pairs aa, ae, ao, ea, ee, eo, eu, oa, oe, oo, ou
(with or without intervening commas) are equivalent
to a'a, a'e, a'o, e'a, e'e, e'o, e'u, o'a, o'e, o'o, o'u
respectively."

But, for example, ua = u,a is always different from u'a.

> > (2) "Commas are never required: no two Lojban words differ solely
> > because of the presence or placement of a comma."
>
> This was done because the contrary rule (as in Loglan) led to
> absurdities like ai,ai,aiaglu being different from a,ia,ia,iaglu
> (in pre-Lojban Loglan, "aiaiaiaglu" was read as the former, but
> in current Loglan it's the latter). This difference
> seemed to us to be too subtle, and to threaten audio-visual isomorphism.

{aiaiaiaglu} is not currently a valid fu'ivla, because it
doesn't have a consonant cluster in the first five letters.

That rule for fu'ivla is also quite odd. I would find more
reasonable to either impose no restriction on the number of
letters that can precede the cluster, or make the restriction
to be a maximum of two vowels before the cluster (that's what
happens with lujvo). Allowing three vowels but not a consonant
with three vowels is weird, and makes that part of the
algorithm unreasonably complicated.

> I take the current position to be that "kanku'a" is a lujvo, and
> "kankua" and "kanku,a" are different spellings of the same fu'ivla;
> I would be in favor of forbidding "kanku,a" altogether. Note that
> its stress accent is very different, KANkua vs. kanKU,a, so this
> is not just a matter of a glide vs. a full vowel.

So the rule you would want is something like "commas are not
allowed to break what otherwise would be a diphthong in brivla"?

(I think that agrees with what Pierre said re prua/pru,a)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250