From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:52:01 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 24 May 1993 14:43:28 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8009; Mon, 24 May 93 14:42:41 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 2644; Mon, 24 May 93 14:43:36 EDT Date: Mon, 24 May 1993 13:31:34 -0400 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: TECH: more on morphology problem - some opionions X-To: Lojban List To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: <9305211526.AA16389@relay1.UU.NET> from "Logical Language Group" at May 21, 93 11:26:23 am Status: O X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Mon May 24 09:31:34 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: la lojbab. cusku di'e > 2. A new phonological category of "permissible initial cluster" be defined, > to apply to le'avla. Clusters at the beginning of words would be required > to be such that all pairs of consonants within the cluster be permissible > initial pairs, per the standard set already defined. My preliminary analysis suggests that this proposal is safe. The standard flavors of type 3 le'avla include the following (where R = r,l,n): CVCCRC... CCVCRC... CVCRC... CCVRC... CVVRC... CV'VRC... The first two employ 4-letter rafsi; the remaining four use 3-letter rafsi. The forms CVVRC... and CV'VRC... may not be safe in all circumstances: if the C... tail (the borrowed part) looks like a lujvo, the whole word is invalid as a le'avla but valid as a lujvo. The cases beginning CC are safe a priori; nothing can fall off. The other cases would, if CV were to drop off, begin RC, CRC, or CCRC, none of which is valid by the rule above, because RC is never a valid initial pair. However, I would propose an even simpler, safer rule which can't blow up on us later, and somehow feels "more Lojbanic" to me. Don't allow consonant triples or larger multiples at the beginning of words at all. They aren't allowed anywhere else in the language (barring names, which have weird phonotactics anyway). > 3. A self-consistent definition of permissible medial cluster would be > devised that covered these messy combiantions that can arise in le'avla. > the current definition in the Synopsis was written only with gismu and > lujvo in mind, and hence is vague and/or forbidding of the norm for lujvo. I don't understand "vague and/or forbidding of the norm". As I understand it, the current definition of a permissible medial triple is that it must take the form C1C2C3, where C1C2 is a permissible medial pair and C2C3 is a permissible initial pair. > 4. Cowan will investagate, and may propose some norms for final clusters, > which would set a non-mandatory standard for use in names. This is a wholly separate issue, and one which needn't be solved now. Names are still just ...C, with no impermissible medial consonant pairs. -- John Cowan cowan@snark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!lock60!snark!cowan e'osai ko sarji la lojban.