From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Jul 14 07:40:22 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:40:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I9inG-0000sh-2c for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:40:22 -0700 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.242]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I9inD-0000sa-A2 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:40:21 -0700 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b21so158894ana for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:40:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=PK7xOp2vBFfKS6GJZl/UKrMz+IZ4dBQm7FHUWjqRNdYRId/Op8BnjNUsImw9L1yw5ljPuJ7JM4qj33nLP8QTBi/qNO7JQWMmYtUN4aTyjIFkLgI95QzVQYL/18k1yVdCQyGz+qFEUp5luW4apkaNx9D/MEYlRZ7dr4fopZZ3nPg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=KWhTZ1a0hUgZdA/qFDUQ8dGSD/4JPzIahCXowf2QFYORi1o+U+/P8QPRWcC1Qj5mg1fYSwoDZf2bswGTj6+E7LDyCzeElpnMyn6sFdgCeqXZaZPQrp1TGRgiUZy5+Re/+ZYhDV+VrutLh1gD9pcNAHvFHVWwez8eXVgyb0rA0Yk= Received: by 10.100.166.14 with SMTP id o14mr1439462ane.1184424017419; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.42.17 with HTTP; Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560707140740j4b9c3422s247213f558703a38@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:40:17 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: double letters In-Reply-To: <136408.76098.qm@web56410.mail.re3.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200707131845.34291.phma@phma.optus.nu> <136408.76098.qm@web56410.mail.re3.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 5204 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On 7/14/07, Nathaniel Krause wrote: > {stagrleoxari} and {spatrleoxari} ... {koendu} > > The "oe" seems likely to be confused with "oue". While it's non-obvious that > the latter is legal, it seems the more plausible of the two. "oue" would not be a problem under my proposal because "u" works as a semi-consonant separating the two nuclei. I agree that for some people "oe" and "oue" might be too close, or "ea" and "eia", and so on, but I don't find that argument very persuasive because Lojban, like most any other language, will always have some sound combinations that are problematic for someone or other. For me, like for most speakers of Spanish probably, "oue" and "oe", and "ea" and "eia" are perfectly distinct. > As for {ctiipyrias}, I don't see anything illegal about it, but ... there > seems to be an urge among Lojbanists to push the limits of the language's > phonotactics. Why? Let's all go easy on our future fellow pronouncers, > please. There's a tension between two forces to resolve: on the one hand, people want borrowings and names to match as closely as possible the original word (if such or such language allows this combination, why shouldn't Lojban allow it too?) and on the other hand, we want them to fit as closely as possible with the core words of the language, which are cmavo, gismu and lujvo. Personally, I would only allow cmevla and fu'ivla to consist of syllables that are possible in lujvo or cmavo. Unfortunately, that rule is already broken by type-3 fu'ivla that introduce syllabic consonants, so some extension is unavoidable. Fortunately, the issues remaining to be settled are relatively minor and affect only very few peripheral words, as most new cmevla and fu'ivla that are coined do remain within the range of syllables that occur in lujvo. If I'm not mistaken, the only two issues that have to be settled are (1) whether or not to allow any possible string of vowels, and if some restriction is imposed, what it will be, and (2) what the allowed consonant clusters at the end of a cmevla should be. Most cmevla end with a single consonant, but some have been coined with consonant clusters at the end, which is not strange given that English is a language that is particularly permissive with final consonant clusters and most coiners are English speakers. mu'o mi'e xorxes