From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:45:52 2010 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list Date: Thu Dec 14 10:58:47 1995 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Re: JBO: Re: lojban dialectology X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199512140949.EAA21604@cs.columbia.edu> (message from Don Wiggins on Thu, 14 Dec 1995 09:48:36 GMT) Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Thu Dec 14 10:58:47 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: >Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 09:48:36 GMT >From: Don Wiggins >> i la ~mark zvati ma i jibri my fa le nu zgana la'e di'u >.i.uanaisai .i la'o zy. ~mark zy. ki'a mi'e mark. .i mi se casnu .ia .iji'a mi ja'a zgana I won't wrestle with Lojban for this; I'm out of practice... Indeed, I *did* notice "*bebylan" and thought about commenting on it. But I wasn't positive if I'd be in the right this time. I remembered how words like "mlat" had been made permissible cmene since the "la" was preceded by a consonant and thus could not be the start of a new word, since the consonant couldn't fall off. And the same may obtain here, since the "la" here is preceded by "y" which normally cannot be the end of a word unless it's followed by a pause (as with consonants). So the "beby" can't fall off of "?bebylan", so I thought maybe it was permissible, considering CyC to be a consonant cluster for this purpose. What's the real answer? 'Course, in Hebrew, it's "baVEL." ~mark