From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:51:51 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 25 May 1993 00:44:54 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0491; Tue, 25 May 93 00:44:06 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 7250; Tue, 25 May 93 00:45:18 EDT Date: Tue, 25 May 1993 00:42:47 EDT Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: TECH: more on morphology problem - some opionions X-To: cowan@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: O X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Mon May 24 20:42:47 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: <8-x7UHdmDPE.A.C6H.H00kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> I think the advantage of consonat triples in borrowings is that they DO occur in the language we borrow from, and that is the 'Lojbanic' reason to make that concession in borrowing forms. However, most such >legitimate< intial triples are of a plimited set of predicatable forms like 'spr', 'str', etc. that easily fit the other definition. The main restriction my proposal sets in, is that one normally would not Lojbanize a syllabic r/n/l/m or other consonant, but would have to add a vowel to keep from having a invalid initial. Since most syllabics can alternatively be rendered with a vowel quite recognizeably (er for syllabic 'r' being the way we typically write it in English, and the words when borrowed into other language typically have the 'er' actually sounded out rather than reduced), the restricton I propose should not be too severe, but I don't know what to so with a borrowing that starts out with a triple to keep it recognizable. With regard to consonant triples, the Synopsis is clear to someone who knows what it means, but there is some vagueness in one of the references (I can't recall where, but I was looking at it just before I wrote that last posting), that probably could cause someone to think that a valid form was invalid. In any event, my statement is very true for le'avla, in that no one has ever considered that medials within a le'avla had to be confined to the C/CC with the second pair a valid initial restriction. If they had, then we would not have the current controversy since ALL type III le'avla break that rule by having the glue consonant stuck in the middle, and there is no definition saying whether consonant quadruples or more are valid or not. As for names - no it insn't important, but if we have any rules that we want people to follwo as conventions or guidelines, we better get them settled before the dictionary/reference is done, and that will be one of the first sevctions completed, I hope. lojbab