Received: from mail-la0-f59.google.com ([209.85.215.59]:54525)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.80.1)
	(envelope-from <bpfk-list+bncBDNZFNNFVAHRBUXPWORAKGQEJXECS2Y@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1XiNvW-0002BN-A4; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 06:32:15 -0700
Received: by mail-la0-f59.google.com with SMTP id gi9sf456305lab.4
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 06:32:02 -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=Ujsbrw66aBErzxVRJtugijCUuwER51xWETlu4gnlVmQ=;
        b=jlOYhAFKKfgVLfTkZc1btKy1Tthnc0fUWTuZ7fJ2WSWb8ateYz0ybAwLIT08veClxQ
         gEebdsA+Ch22aEPZLb/wt4rDs0Uw6F469o/qYMipICUHH5OQuLq8+Q8Q8Ka5H+IcMxQC
         CTmIpTrNRi3phX2MF3x7gdHhvzA2RT8wJqE5dzrz4/R271vRIC/Q9I/QZnnseQyFyvtx
         YWgxLss9CWXdUGSKu+o2Ojtl13vhfx0m3c7cTAe5xoK0dtULIm+oANsh+gcWpcVOkyWd
         jCa3sA8299r52UIx9Snye8sUx88fN7mq3s1DxN4uFuepUhhMTmTEM00EFX64ZzUCyY8w
         VBSg==
X-Received: by 10.180.107.231 with SMTP id hf7mr46855wib.8.1414330322412;
        Sun, 26 Oct 2014 06:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.180.72.241 with SMTP id g17ls278695wiv.23.canary; Sun, 26 Oct
 2014 06:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.180.105.74 with SMTP id gk10mr4235931wib.0.1414330322042;
        Sun, 26 Oct 2014 06:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x229.google.com (mail-wi0-x229.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::229])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o2si350273wib.2.2014.10.26.06.32.02
        for <bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Sun, 26 Oct 2014 06:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::229 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::229;
Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id q5so4173660wiv.4
        for <bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 26 Oct 2014 06:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.194.172.234 with SMTP id bf10mr2130298wjc.81.1414330321964;
        Sun, 26 Oct 2014 06:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.4] (97e2292d.skybroadband.com. [151.226.41.45])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id mc4sm8347952wic.6.2014.10.26.06.32.00
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Sun, 26 Oct 2014 06:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <544CF7D1.9050300@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 13:32:01 +0000
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
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> <CAO7tK2e9Ukj2MaEm-Xr9-dAenOM7wX4fSm1Ci8BKg-QSchswRQ@mail.gmail.com> <9c2066d4-8da6-48ec-9cfb-63f79ca42187@googlegroups.com> <CAO7tK2fJeQQUrvgo1MzP_XNMhk2or3c6yTERwvdREjM9F9uCKw@mail.gmail.com> <CAO7tK2eN1oc0JQyr0Rd6ESy-Giq7RW0UbMNRQfXs6K6MD-9fow@mail.gmail.com> <20141025153624.GA1727@mercury.ccil.org> <CAO7tK2c3huhqOQa25rKojYUszJGre5DCrmHwCABkC0sH_cH8NQ@mail.gmail.com> <544BF508.3060500@gmail.com> <24AD03E6AEA1476F9B53E0EE111750E9@gmail.com> <544BF94F.3040204@gmail.com> <CAO7tK2d+_h498M+7jnuhTutY0-h6U3ZUj++2D0YM8ooMk72ZDg@mail.gmail.com> <CAO7tK2d1HEaJNgGPnFmC-0t_epj9G7xwBizqZ-yJ8Q-JhnfBaA@mail.gmail.com> <544CB576.2070503@gmail.com> <CAO7tK2f5j3=of=2cei-yR780Y6peBr=VxDQr5ySw6HW6KU9zzA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2f5j3=of=2cei-yR780Y6peBr=VxDQr5ySw6HW6KU9zzA@mail.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:c05::229
 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: <bpfk-list.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/post>, <mailto:bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:bpfk-list+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list
Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe>, <mailto:bpfk-list+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+972099695765+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>,
 <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; 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: -

Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas, On 26/10/2014 12:52:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 5:48 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:a=
nd.rosta@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Here's the theory of morphological syllables in a nutshell.

A very precise specification of the what, but not so clear on the why. Are =
there rationales other than "Because CLL says so"? And if that is the only =
rationale, and the rules could be drastically simplified without invalidati=
ng any existing lexis, why not simplify the rules? (Given that anyway the C=
LL rules are plainly not complete and fully specified.)

> There are 18 valid (morphological) codas: the 17 consonants and the empty=
 coda.

I guess it's at least 17, because each of the 17 Cs can occur word-medially=
 before another C that it can't occur word-initially before?

Does CLL forbid CC codas? I guess this would be in fu'ivla. So /artsta/ is =
not a valid fu'ivla, say?

> All words (except for cmevla) consist of a sequence of valid syllables.

Is this from CLL?

If the constraints apply only to words of certain classes, then the constra=
ints are almost certainly morphophonological and not phonological in nature=
.

>         Without a buffer vowel, it does make sense to limit the amount of
>         consonant clustering that can occur. If there was a buffer vowel,
>         the morphophonological syllable could still be onset-nucleus-coda=
 as
>         now, but with the coda allowed to contain as many consonants as y=
ou
>         wanted. That's not how my dialect of lojban works though.
>
>
>     In what way is it not how your dialect of Lojban works? It would cate=
gorize as valid some words that you categorize as invalid? Or would it inse=
rt word-boundaries differently? The latter seems more significant an object=
ion than the former.
>
> Just the former. I would not want to categorize "poktpftcu" for
> example as a valid word.

But is that for any reason other than habit?

>     So anyway, do you advocate abolishing the buffer vowel? An alternativ=
e would be to insist that every licit phonological string has both a CV syl=
labification (with buffer vowels) and a resyllabification without buffer vo=
wels. That alternative strikes me as needlessly complex, but as still prefe=
rable to abolishing the buffer vowel.
>
> I don't mind it appearing sporadically at the phonological level, I
> just don't want it at the phonemic level because I think it hinders
> more than helps.

A distinction between "the phonological level" and "the phonemic level" loo=
ks rather spurious to me.

--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.