From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Tue May 25 08:27:23 1993
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 25 May 1993 08:27:23 -0400
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)    with BSMTP id 1500; Tue, 25 May 93 08:26:36 EDT
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with  BSMTP id 8760; Tue, 25 May 93 08:27:52 EDT
Date:         Tue, 25 May 1993 13:25:29 BST
Reply-To: I.Alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Iain Alexander <I.Alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: TECH: more on morphology problem - some opionions
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Erik Rauch <erikr@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>
Status: O
X-Status: 
Message-ID: <azHgsd1K3x.A.j3H.9z0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

la kau,n. cusku di'e

> la lojbab. cusku di'e

> > 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<pause>, with no impermissible medial consonant
> pairs.

I used to think so, and then:

la kolin. cusku di'e

> .uu zoi gy. Bradford gy.

> I just noticed I've been using a lojbanization of Bradford that is not
> only not a good rendering ("bradfyd" would be better) but is also
> invalid phonologically.

> Henceforward, I will repair this by going to a really local
> pronunciation:

>         bratfyd

cu'u mi
> > I'm curious to know what's phonologically invalid about
> > "*bradfrd".  It doesn't break any rule I can remember coming
> > across.


> "df" is not a permissible medial (voiced-unvoiced).

So which is it, guys?

mi'e .i,n.