From phma@webjockey.net Fri Nov 29 17:53:32 2002
Return-Path: <phma@ixazon.dynip.com>
X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 30 Nov 2002 01:53:32 -0000
Received: (qmail 88669 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2002 01:53:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
  by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2002 01:53:32 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (208.150.110.21)
  by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2002 01:53:31 -0000
Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500)
	id 647BE3C600; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 20:53:29 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Fu'ivla diphthongs was: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 20:53:27 -0500
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2]
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129125713.00abb680@pop.east.cox.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021129201628.031287f0@pop.east.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129201628.031287f0@pop.east.cox.net>
X-Spamtrap: fesmri@ixazon.dynip.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <0211292053270Q.02982@neofelis>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@webjockey.net>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=92712300
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 17266

On Friday 29 November 2002 20:18, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> At 01:41 PM 11/29/02 -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> >what about {cipnrxakuila}?
>
> I dunno?  What about it?  If someone has said it is invalid, what was their
> reason?

No one said it's invalid that I know of, but it contains a diphthong that 
does not appear in lujvo.

According to chapter 3:

The first four diphthongs above (``ai'', ``ei'', ``oi'', and ``au'', the ones 
with off-glides) are freely used in most types of Lojban words; the ten 
following ones are used only as stand-alone words and in Lojbanized names and 
borrowings; and the last two (``iy'' and ``uy'') are used only in Lojbanized 
names.

Thus a fu'ivla can contain {ua} or {io} or {ui}. So {srutio} (a fu'ivla, 
discarded in favor of {strutione} for "ostrich") is distinct from {sruti'o} 
(a lujvo: "penumbra", maybe?), and {ckankua} (a fu'ivla: "skunk") is distinct 
from {ckanku'a} (a valsrslinku'i).

As to the TLI alternate orthography, {i'o} in a fu'ivla is written as {i,o}, 
but in a lujvo {i'o} is written as {io}.

> I don't pretend to be more a master of fu'ivla than others.  So far as I
> know, however, the rafsi fu'ivla like that one all work.

By work, do you mean that you can make words like {cipnrxakuilykanla}?

phma