Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of everson@evertype.com designates 78.137.164.59 as permitted sender) client-ip=78.137.164.59;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: [lojban] {la .alis.} book
From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
In-Reply-To: <5565E5EC.6030308@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 18:00:26 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A36F8EC7-DB88-4C7B-88F8-3B2A1E1D8B74@evertype.com>
References: <CAAQ0imNCevsLG+eznvp_Vn1Jk-ZG=ZH-=YhG_oL4d9w06+1o-A@mail.gmail.com> <1668540.L6pQx4xKKk@caracal> <CAAQ0imOPZAzzkWd_s5RJMkZVS71uFqo1qyx_5rXO1PR7t6mf6g@mail.gmail.com> <9248C4CE-DAAE-4BB4-8A28-C6C579472035@evertype.com> <CAO7bV+i42+F90kGWTYV2iEzu=917wJdykLAz6wL0W=mxHfTybg@mail.gmail.com> <2A580ECF-BBF0-43E3-8C95-2ADF1CF8A532@evertype.com> <5565C857.4020702@gmx.de> <E7E61E40-7EB7-436D-B309-DFFE8C4B518F@evertype.com> <5565E5EC.6030308@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

On 27 May 2015, at 16:42, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Well, a glottal stop is a consonant, and a pause is a pause.
>=20
> And both phonetically realize phoneme /./.

A pause of indeterminate length is a phoneme?

>> I lu =E2=80=9CFi la=E2=80=99e di=E2=80=99u,=E2=80=9D sei la Maikl pu cus=
ku, =E2=80=9Cmi so=E2=80=99i va=E2=80=99e tugni=E2=80=9D li=E2=80=99u.
>>=20
>> But the problem again here is that for consistency (and automation) one =
would expect:
>>=20
>> I lu =E2=80=9CFi la=E2=80=99e di=E2=80=99u,=E2=80=9D sei la Maikl pu cus=
ku se'u, =E2=80=9Cmi so=E2=80=99i va=E2=80=99e tugni=E2=80=9D li=E2=80=99u.
>>=20
>> Wouldn=E2=80=99t one?
>=20
> But why would one expect consistency with regard to a grammatical feature=
 that is expressly variable?

Because Lojban is hard enough and there are no native speakers?

> A rough analogy from English is the omissibility of _that_ from the start=
 of complement clauses (e.g. "He knows (that) she is"): what lunatic would =
'regularize' an English text by restoring every omitted _that_? And would y=
ou make overt *every* covert terminator?

It seems to me that a relative pronoun is different from a state process. I=
f lu/li=E2=80=99u is regular, why shouldn=E2=80=99t sei/se=E2=80=99u be?

As I say, it=E2=80=99s your language, but this seems quite inconsistent giv=
en the logicalness one might expect.=20

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.