Received: from mail-lb0-f185.google.com ([209.85.217.185]:64080) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Xi6ya-0001QA-E0; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:26:20 -0700 Received: by mail-lb0-f185.google.com with SMTP id u10sf387341lbd.22 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:26:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=nPi/Us5FiwCgO9gqJjHr+GuIxX0wdRTudPkAYodBgl0=; b=Ep5LWlrrRPRYLlvjPy3zy+ItXaf51XwSzoKp2JmlILYTNMVWXHvgceDOIhGy4Ee6f8 SQJhLeuQ+HkzkM9iPJobLvNhkkXxXHx8/arIHf+hZP7sfGvZe3eGONxoSI1ejziBygeZ o78IqZ9n/wJqQB0Uv8bRQLzTLWLyVx8bzTg6qfozUM8PtMYut7RK0xb3TMKtHvHEKphR mXAa4mURPqqmiyVRVnd5UsIi2A7fpWQprP/HZuVv2GBlFmpXJvudRTDH7Idu7K221Ipj 3x3a+tfE4aLDnk0zyzrelwLF6MF99PJLX+7P/rvkWi1/iAmqzh0Al9892h3dvhIbOt8c VO5g== X-Received: by 10.152.29.1 with SMTP id f1mr19lah.36.1414265164580; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:26:04 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.5.38 with SMTP id p6ls553522lap.64.gmail; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:26:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.225.135 with SMTP id rk7mr3778117lbc.6.1414265164016; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:26:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x233.google.com (mail-wg0-x233.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c00::233]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ej8si269579wib.3.2014.10.25.12.26.03 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:26:03 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::233 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::233; Received: by mail-wg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id b13so3121926wgh.22 for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:26:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.219.106 with SMTP id pn10mr12027470wic.63.1414265163884; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:26:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.4] (97e2292d.skybroadband.com. [151.226.41.45]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id gw6sm5978375wib.8.2014.10.25.12.26.02 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:26:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <544BF94F.3040204@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 20:26:07 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120711 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [bpfk] camxes and syllabification in zi'evla References: <33A9DB5129C54FFF85FCDD708B6909D8@gmail.com> <9c2066d4-8da6-48ec-9cfb-63f79ca42187@googlegroups.com>

<20141025153624.GA1727@mercury.ccil.org> <544BF508.3060500@gmail.com> <24AD03E6AEA1476F9B53E0EE111750E9@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <24AD03E6AEA1476F9B53E0EE111750E9@gmail.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 2a00:1450:400c:c00::233 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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - Alex Burka, On 25/10/2014 20:12: > I don't see how you could replace all consideration of consonant clusters= with CV + explicit buffer vowels. Wouldn't you lose the ability to specify= which clusters are valid, which ones are valid initially, etc? You're quite right: these constraints on 'consonant clusters' cannot plausi= bly be phonological and must rather be morphophonological. The distribution= of buffer vowels proves that phonological structure is essentially CV. Whi= le in principle, phonological constraints on Cs in /C%C/ sequences are not = implausible, the particular constraints Lojban wants to impose are. Therefo= re, any constraints on 'clusters' are more plausibly morphophonological. Mo= rphophonological rules can do whatever you like. --And. =20 > mu'o mi'e la durka > > On Saturday, October 25, 2014 at 3:07 PM, And Rosta wrote: > >> This discussion seems if not nonsensical then at least not very sensical= . >> >> What is the evidence that Lojban allows syllables other than CV? >> >> I'm not saying there isn't any, but it's not obvious what it is. The (re= grettable) existence of minimal pairs /Cia/:/Ciia/ seems to imply CGV sylla= bles, and the (regrettable) existence of minimal pairs /aiC/:/aiiC/ seems t= o imply CVG syllables. But is there any other sort of syllable? >> >> These morphophonological constraints on Lojban words seem to involve som= ething other than syllables -- specifically a morphophonological entity rat= her than (as the syllable is) a phonological one. Once you get out of phono= logy and into morphophonology, notions of naturalness and crosslinguistic t= endencies become less pertinent. So the morphophonological rules can be as = weird and wacky as you like; tho without good reason, why would you want th= em to be? >> >> But if Lojban syllabification is essentially CV (or simplex onset + simp= lex nucleus), give or take any complications with glides, why bother with a= bunch of morphophonological constraints? Is it just because they are codif= ied in CLL (albeit in erroneously phonological terms) and therefore cannotb= e abandoned? Would abandoning morphophonological constraints invalidate exi= sting words or text? >> >> I should add, btw, that even if you wanted to push the IMO untenable ana= lysis of the buffer vowel being anaptyctic, it would be even more implausib= le to argue that anaptyxis occurs within a syllabic constituent, so either = the way the buffer vowel diagnoses syllable structure. >> >> --And. >> >> Jorge Llamb=EDas, On 25/10/2014 16:46: >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM, John Cowan > wrote: >>> >>> Jorge Llamb=EDas scripsit: >>> >>> > artmxozaiko >>> > kaktnxo >>> > mastlxa >>> >>> etc. etc. >>> >>> These words are far worse than their x-less equivalents. Better to refo= rmulate >>> the grammar to allow art-mo-zai-ko. >>> >>> >>> I see that as a feature, not a problem. The syllable "-art-" may look f= ine to English speakers, but it's unlojbanic, lojban only allows single con= sonant codas. "ar,tm,xo,zai,ko" is horrible, of course, consonantal syllabl= es should be avoided. Why not better make it "larmozaiko"? >>> >>> mu'o mi'e xorxes >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group= s "BPFK" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send a= n email 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. > > -- > 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= email 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. --=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.