From phma@oltronics.net Tue Nov 27 14:24:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 27 Nov 2001 22:24:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 5551 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2001 22:24:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Nov 2001 22:24:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (216.189.29.225) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Nov 2001 22:24:25 -0000 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id E8B643C54C; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:22:00 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Reply-To: phma@oltronics.net To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: srutio and ckankua Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:21:59 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0111271721590I.03849@neofelis> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com From: Pierre Abbat Both these wordoids contain vowel pairs that are invalid in lujvo but valid in cmavo and cmene. Yet vlatai calls {ckankua} a valid type-4 but rejects {srutio} as invalid. Why? The only difference I can see is that {sruti'o} is a valid lujvo, whereas {ckanku'a} is a slinku'i. phma