From jjllambias@gmail.com Tue Mar 09 12:12:49 2010 Received: from mail-bw0-f217.google.com ([209.85.218.217]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Np5nJ-000676-S1 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:12:49 -0800 Received: by bwz9 with SMTP id 9so658015bwz.5 for ; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:12:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MOji9UZnzORycr1EdTT9Ez/tCufyilTZChKhs0YhIh8=; b=N+kupsXLS1QsqN8o5+44BJCnpu5m4lhwzyuThwmj1qyOMJPTUxcELJgAKRopJwoQej F2260X51Pd7LiYy+u71H7rO6JL852hyX33P4eIu96bn4j6YPPn83yK3pLYyV+uNDUiH5 x2qARo5+FQUmMBoD34WHGhORirdMRxMl21P+A= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=VJqQGDnar5xsEJ5CjLVfPPsvUfTUPlRdmH75J1NDypQw5MIVbV5x0V+oz3tC1V/RjV YDWPTcBU7+4x7lDAsIxUMbs7GqeTUMryppHS3+pWEzZ2pN1HMWHGtIVzwnFFBqopQBeF 7tnj6+eIByOu0pBTVf/F5MvC2xQUZ8wdIhho8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.138.71 with SMTP id z7mr402921bkt.77.1268165559075; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:12:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20100309195148.GA28243@sdf.lonestar.org> References: <96f789a61003090826i27a6531eob88df0e3bfce7e14@mail.gmail.com> <20100309195148.GA28243@sdf.lonestar.org> Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 17:12:39 -0300 Message-ID: <925d17561003091212i3eb41dbdhbd8f86e685afad0f@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: stage-4 fu'ivla construction exception? From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Minimiscience wro= te: > > Section 4.7 of the CLL, after the description of {fu'ivla} morphology, st= ates: > >> Note that consonant triples or larger clusters that are not at the begin= ning >> of a fu'ivla can be quite flexible, as long as all consonant **pairs** a= re >> permissible. > > (Emphasis added.) =A0There is a similar statement for {cmevla}, and so th= e CLL > can be interpreted as prohibiting "ndj" et alii only from use in {lujvo}.= =A0The > last time I asked about this, I was told that the BPFK has yet to decide > whether this restriction actually applies to {fu'ivla} or not. Yes, CLL is unclear on that point, but what could possibly be the rationale for disallowing "ndj" in lujvo while allowing it in fu'ivla? Common sense dictates that phonotactic constraints should apply equally to all words, whatever the exact wording in CLL is. mu'o mi'e xorxes