Received: from mail-ig0-f188.google.com ([209.85.213.188]:59530) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XgMRA-0004uw-RM; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:32:37 -0700 Received: by mail-ig0-f188.google.com with SMTP id l13sf42788iga.15 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:32:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=+YpLYPe4eKZtf9I8SatqsRKVFQ/TvMJ2H+xB9+bEaqk=; b=xPtPQeD00Lvf3acpJ1yvv3KjX+rv1Cycu6S6z1U8h/VgQQ/e9VfocVYS4zqTvWZrcb xCeeyEqV/++v4mAPze3Nj428PubKP2VaMSA2u6aE3EjpLSxHtyehU1BLBGj6dZrn08Bk U0k2iT+SPLaeZKo93NnNZSH7JVoRI89AWy+jaNN5H4SZXTVQdOO6ObwXZTDcjYw3FOZL Sv4leS/lRzPj2ZE9pvMOQ/EOP5kVWDwfw+K0v3G5u0A7cDcE/QbEikbv/Ak/ItixPH0U ldoi+uCJ0npGrYLQeQKFbILTL2PPJiBuoXZoo2XcQpHqBKInUIiaKmLL1B4/SGlErKbU Kxgw== X-Received: by 10.182.65.229 with SMTP id a5mr28991obt.26.1413847941789; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:32:21 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.182.21.107 with SMTP id u11ls1219obe.38.gmail; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:32:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.91.79 with SMTP id cc15mr20900725obb.31.1413847941570; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:32:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-x22d.google.com (mail-ob0-x22d.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22d]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h8si688128igq.0.2014.10.20.16.32.21 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:32:21 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22d as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22d; Received: by mail-ob0-f173.google.com with SMTP id wp4so65693obc.18 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:32:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.45.71 with SMTP id k7mr5184834oem.41.1413847941064; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:32:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.110.199 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:32:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.110.199 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:32:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5444FEBF.10200@gmx.de> <544507CD.9050608@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 00:32:20 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] official cmavo form From: And Rosta To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22d as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0149cd724b2c840505e32094 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --089e0149cd724b2c840505e32094 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 20 Oct 2014 22:43, "Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas" wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:02 AM, And Rosta wrote: >> >> >> Why must Lojban have onsets and syllabification? /Cia/ is problematic only if /Ci-/ must constitute an onset. > > > There's no special need to realize /Cia/ as one syllable, but it must be counted as one syllable for penultimate stress rule purposes. How come? Is it simply that because word-segmentation is sensitive to stress, and stress is sensitive to syllabicity, varisyllabicity risks undermining the consistency of the word-segmentation rules? If so, the stress or word-segmentation rules can be reformulated so that VV counts as a single metrical unit rather than a sequence of two. > Formulating the rule without mentioning syllables would be more complicated. It's not yet clear to me that that is so, but that could be because I don't know the rule. > It also has to be distinguished from "ciia" How come? Is "ciia" licit? Is it licit even if "cia" isn't? > >>> I see no problems with {ie'o} as a cmavo form. >> >> >> How about {a'ua}? > > > "a'ua" is currently not allowed by camxes, but "a'uua" is (it's two words= ) Ah. So the two-word version needn't be "a'u.ua"? I had been thinking that all words must begin with a consonant. I would allow "a'ua" (assuming I was not allowed to kill /'/), disallow "uu", and have all words begin with a consonant, but if "a'uua" must be a variant of "a'u.ua" then I see why "a'ua" must be forbidden. --And. --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= BPFK" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. --089e0149cd724b2c840505e32094 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 20 Oct 2014 22:43, "Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas" <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:02 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Why must Lojban have onsets and syllabification? /Cia/ is problema= tic only if /Ci-/ must constitute an onset.
>
>
> There's no special need to realize /Cia/ as one syllable, but it m= ust be counted as one syllable for penultimate stress rule purposes.

How come? Is it simply that because word-segmentation is sen= sitive to stress, and stress is sensitive to syllabicity, varisyllabicity r= isks undermining the consistency of the word-segmentation rules? If so, the= stress or word-segmentation rules can be reformulated so that VV counts as= a single metrical unit rather than a sequence of two.

> Formulating the rule without mentioning syllables would= be more complicated.

It's not yet clear to me that that is so, but that could= be because I don't know the rule.

> It also has to be distinguished from "ciia"

How come? Is "ciia" licit? Is it licit even if &qu= ot;cia" isn't?

>
>>> I see no problems with {ie'o} as a cmavo form.
>>
>>
>> How about {a'ua}?
>
>
> "a'ua" is currently not allowed by camxes, but "a&#= 39;uua" is (it's two words)

Ah. So the two-word version needn't be "a'u.ua"? I had been thinking that all words must = begin with a consonant.

I would allow "a'ua" (assuming I was not allow= ed to kill /'/), disallow "uu", and have all words begin with= a consonant, but if "a'uua" must be a variant of "a'= ;u.ua" then I see why "a'ua"= must be forbidden.

--And.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list= +unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at ht= tp://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--089e0149cd724b2c840505e32094--