From sentto-44114-17299-1038660699-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Sat Nov 30 04:52:18 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 30 Nov 2002 04:52:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from n14.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.69]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18I76R-0001jn-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 04:52:11 -0800 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-17299-1038660699-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.198] by n14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Nov 2002 12:51:40 -0000 X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 30 Nov 2002 12:51:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 92031 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2002 12:51:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2002 12:51:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (208.150.110.21) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2002 12:51:39 -0000 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id 0DCCA3C5F3; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 07:51:37 -0500 (EST) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129210004.03152dd0@pop.east.cox.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021130000308.03a38a90@pop.east.cox.net> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021130000308.03a38a90@pop.east.cox.net> X-Spamtrap: fesmri@ixazon.dynip.com Message-Id: <0211300751330S.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: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 07:51:33 -0500 Subject: [lojban] Re: Fu'ivla diphthongs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 2786 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 Saturday 30 November 2002 00:04, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > >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. > > Precisely. So ua is allowed in kuarka. Now repeat the analysis for > srutio/sruti'o. SO srutio = AO srutio SO sruti'o = AO srutio So the alternate orthography is broken. There is a string of letters for which the pronunciation is not unique. Since it is not standard, and has not been used, then why not just drop it? phma To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/