From ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK  Sat Mar  6 22:45:12 2010
Date:         Fri, 26 May 1995 01:06:59 +0100
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: Proposal: C-Glide-V
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
X-From-Space-Date: 
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Message-ID: <RIA7u5KHyXE.A.w0E.4t0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

Jorge:
> > I realize noone wants there to be 68 more cmavo,
> Then don't provide them, please!

I didn't.  I suggested expanding the phonological space available to
cmavo.

> > but over
> > time there may turn out to be a need to give certain cmavo
> > shorter forms.
> Then some of the monosyllabic cmavo will have to go... :)

It'll never happen.

> > (E.g. monosyllabic alternatives to {du'u},
> I think {du'u} should change places with {du}. That would also help
> discourage the use of {du}, which should be used much less than it
> is (if it should be used at all outside maths, which I doubt).

Do you object to my use of {du} below?

People have learnt {du'u} and {du}.  You can't go round messing with
that.  Allowing, say, {duo} as an allomorph of {du'u} would be better.

> > {lo'e},
> Let's see... That one could get {lau}. Actually no, I had thought
> that {lau} should go to {la'e}, so I'll think of another one for
> {lo'e}.

I sympathize with the desire.  The present assignation of {lau} is a
crying shame.

> > > > Au se jdacku duu paa loe nu ro dakxai loi terplixa cu binxo ku
> > > > dibzma loe catrytci fa loe valsi fe jia rahunai juocui ro nae glezdi.
> > > oi oi oi do nelci le nu nadgau  i do djica le nu cu'u lo'e jdaselcku
> > > lo'e valsi lo'e catrytci cu zmadu le ka dirba  i xu go'i
> > jaa
> > > i ji'a ju'ocu'i vy zmadu ro da poi zdile gi'enai nungle
> > pehi do cumki srera .i coe ro da poi na ge zdile gi nungle
> > i ie ie  i ku'i sera'a le'e na zdile cu ckise'i

kui ro lohi glezdi ro lohi nungle na du

---
And