From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Nov 13 10:33:31 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:33:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GjgcI-00040j-Eg for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:33:10 -0800 Received: from web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.126]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GjgcE-00040W-DY for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:33:10 -0800 Received: (qmail 74027 invoked by uid 60001); 13 Nov 2006 18:33:04 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=S5HnXT+7ctj+3u0Rb7Eaz9DV5iyShyCQ5rdtPnN1Pmqqxv70f415Nl2WZSck6YXzCKFj7JFgbYZznNOTtg1dRc6TexteT4Zubu1Kj//3sT8MCTwU13GZxgktOymCxsn6hm89xZlxE7yEn5d4f9xmQTbL4r6u7z0EHMg/kYFamMI= ; Message-ID: <20061113183304.74025.qmail@web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.213.146] by web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:33:04 PST Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:33:04 -0800 (PST) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: "la" rule To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20061113171203.GD24729@chain.digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 13094 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Will someone please remind me what horrible things happen if we simply drop the restriction on cmene and make no other changes (that is, live as we do now -- with no reported problems). We might take a vocative as a sumti or, less likely, a sumti as a vocative. C.early, humans sort these out, shouldn't the parser do so as well? --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 07:08:42PM +0600, Yanis Batura wrote: > > On 13.11.2006, 18:47, MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com wrote: > > > > I would recommend a simple yet easy to learn solution that won't > > distort the design of the language: saying {lua} for any > > occurrence of {la} in cmene, {luai} for {lai} and {duoi} for > > {doi}. > > That assumes people are capable of noticing the presence of those > syllables, when clearly we're not. > > > For me, the possibility of saying a consonant-starting cmene after > > {la} without glottal stop overweighs all disadvantages of the > > rule. The matter of taste, of course. > > Indeed; I think that's totally insane. :-) > > -Robin > > -- > http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ > Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" > Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/ > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help. > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.