From sentto-44114-17288-1038621213-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Fri Nov 29 17:54:10 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 29 Nov 2002 17:54:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from n12.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.67]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18HwpY-0007CO-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 17:54:04 -0800 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-17288-1038621213-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.193] by n12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Nov 2002 01:53:33 -0000 X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 30 Nov 2002 01:53:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 88669 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2002 01:53:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2002 01:53:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (208.150.110.21) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2002 01:53:31 -0000 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id 647BE3C600; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 20:53:29 -0500 (EST) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129125713.00abb680@pop.east.cox.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021129201628.031287f0@pop.east.cox.net> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129201628.031287f0@pop.east.cox.net> X-Spamtrap: fesmri@ixazon.dynip.com Message-Id: <0211292053270Q.02982@neofelis> From: Pierre Abbat MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 20:53:27 -0500 Subject: [lojban] Fu'ivla diphthongs was: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 2775 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: phma@webjockey.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Friday 29 November 2002 20:18, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > At 01:41 PM 11/29/02 -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote: > >what about {cipnrxakuila}? > > I dunno? What about it? If someone has said it is invalid, what was their > reason? No one said it's invalid that I know of, but it contains a diphthong that does not appear in lujvo. According to chapter 3: The first four diphthongs above (``ai'', ``ei'', ``oi'', and ``au'', the ones with off-glides) are freely used in most types of Lojban words; the ten following ones are used only as stand-alone words and in Lojbanized names and borrowings; and the last two (``iy'' and ``uy'') are used only in Lojbanized names. Thus a fu'ivla can contain {ua} or {io} or {ui}. So {srutio} (a fu'ivla, discarded in favor of {strutione} for "ostrich") is distinct from {sruti'o} (a lujvo: "penumbra", maybe?), and {ckankua} (a fu'ivla: "skunk") is distinct from {ckanku'a} (a valsrslinku'i). As to the TLI alternate orthography, {i'o} in a fu'ivla is written as {i,o}, but in a lujvo {i'o} is written as {io}. > I don't pretend to be more a master of fu'ivla than others. So far as I > know, however, the rafsi fu'ivla like that one all work. By work, do you mean that you can make words like {cipnrxakuilykanla}? phma To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/