From sentto-44114-17292-1038622958-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Fri Nov 29 18:23:16 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 29 Nov 2002 18:23:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from n35.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.103])
	by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 18HxHh-0007Q6-01
	for lojban-in@lojban.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 18:23:09 -0800
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-17292-1038622958-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [66.218.67.200] by n35.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Nov 2002 02:22:38 -0000
X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 30 Nov 2002 02:22:38 -0000
Received: (qmail 24091 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2002 02:22:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216)
  by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2002 02:22:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (208.150.110.21)
  by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2002 02:22:37 -0000
Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500)
	id 321F73C600; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 21:22:33 -0500 (EST)
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2]
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129210004.03152dd0@pop.east.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129210004.03152dd0@pop.east.cox.net>
X-Spamtrap: fesmri@ixazon.dynip.com
Message-Id: <0211292122280R.02982@neofelis>
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@webjockey.net>
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 21:22:28 -0500
Subject: [lojban] Re: Fu'ivla diphthongs was: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-archive-position: 2779
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 21:00, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> It is NOT that "ua" is not permitted in a fu'ivla (I can't specifically
> recall a prohibition, at least), but that it is not clear that kuarka,
> ku,arka, and ku'arka can be considered as *different* words because of the
> alternate orthography (which would be unusable if we allowed all VV's to
> exist in both diphthong and non-diphthong forms).

As I understand it, in standard orthography, commas make no difference to 
word identity, e.g. spatrkinua=spat,r,kinu,a, even though they are accented 
differently. So kuarka=ku,arka but kuarka<>ku'arka.

In fu'ivla, SO ia-iu and ua-uu are unchanged in alternate orthography, and SO 
i'a-i'u and u'a-u'u are AO i,a-i,u and u,a-u,u. So:
SO kuarka = AO kuarka
SO ku'arka = AO ku,arka
SO ku,arka = AO kuarka , since the comma is ignored in SO.

phma

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/