From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Jul 18 21:04:06 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:04:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IBNFG-00062l-4D for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:04:06 -0700 Received: from phma.optus.nu ([166.82.175.165] helo=ixazon.dynip.com) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IBNFD-00062P-T9 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:04:05 -0700 Received: from chausie (unknown [192.168.7.4]) by ixazon.dynip.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 361A3CE609 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:04:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Pierre Abbat To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: double letters Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:03:57 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <200707131845.34291.phma@phma.optus.nu> <200707170855.22834.phma@phma.optus.nu> <925d17560707170709s80c5531x225e24070ebc8182@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <925d17560707170709s80c5531x225e24070ebc8182@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200707190003.58061.phma@phma.optus.nu> X-Spam-Score: 0.2 X-Spam-Score-Int: 2 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 5235 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: phma@phma.optus.nu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Tuesday 17 July 2007 10:09, Jorge Llambías wrote: > The problem I have with that is that it opens the door to really > weird words like {blaaaaaaaa} which I don't think anyone can > really distinguish from {blaaaaaa}. We can say that those words > will be excluded by common sense, and no special rule is > necessary to block them, but even if everybody agrees in that > particular case, perhaps not everyone will have the same common > sense about {blaaaa}, or {blaaa}, or {blaa}. I prefer a restrictive rule > that is occasionally inadvertently broken than an overly permissive > one. Words with arbitrarily long or repetitive vowel or consonant sequences could be useful as ideophones or onomatopoeias. For instance, {tctcitci} could mean "it rattles". There's also a place in Tahiti called Faaa. It's actually Faa'a, but the apostrophe stands for a glottal stop, which cannot occur inside a Lojban word, so it would have to be {faaas} or the like. Pierre