Received: from mail-la0-f59.google.com ([209.85.215.59]:58569)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.80.1)
	(envelope-from <bpfk-list+bncBDNZFNNFVAHRBBPKV6RAKGQEWC5USKQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1Xi6gv-0001DL-Hl; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:08:15 -0700
Received: by mail-la0-f59.google.com with SMTP id gi9sf400516lab.24
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:07:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results
         :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help
         :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=7gWuRxAE3UeAz68O+nYNrL4N/RIBkAL+Q5FysQXXQkE=;
        b=pyNADT12OyDEu7K07GvGpwoiOD/4HFX2cB4ILEEhU/rUyI497dpRJs4LsUrlJ/GImW
         opz67j5bh/mgsCzk0y0E0yciTSlcmhj7t4xPHBqclEbEzhukSjTWYf+MNuOGMYfCV/we
         /fxMM/u+Ur8rTbzSUJZE7cDk11qIJ5ilkO/OK+uNbIKTR0cUMFUsYcKVUcGWXDXJ+YOS
         9Lxr60ohkVNJd6viafROe8uCPLOx9qBAxqeVnRf3Uf8PvbC2xK1RGnhW0UfW6WgHPPn5
         vlWPZixLshVPWftaBKTjoeLSuS/UTy/OrM8VAlk9ATD3oqj4UnaChPiehqXxYKWiA587
         LxHg==
X-Received: by 10.180.126.39 with SMTP id mv7mr37322wib.9.1414264069543;
        Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:07:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.181.12.38 with SMTP id en6ls52904wid.41.gmail; Sat, 25 Oct
 2014 12:07:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.194.241.232 with SMTP id wl8mr174083wjc.5.1414264069285;
        Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:07:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22b.google.com (mail-wg0-x22b.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cy3si272855wib.2.2014.10.25.12.07.49
        for <bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:07:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b;
Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id n12so3117370wgh.14
        for <bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:07:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.180.107.170 with SMTP id hd10mr11851636wib.66.1414264069208;
        Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:07:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.4] (97e2292d.skybroadband.com. [151.226.41.45])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y5sm5934036wix.10.2014.10.25.12.07.48
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Sat, 25 Oct 2014 12:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <544BF508.3060500@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 20:07:52 +0100
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120711 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [bpfk] camxes and syllabification in zi'evla
References: <33A9DB5129C54FFF85FCDD708B6909D8@gmail.com> <CAO7tK2e9Ukj2MaEm-Xr9-dAenOM7wX4fSm1Ci8BKg-QSchswRQ@mail.gmail.com> <9c2066d4-8da6-48ec-9cfb-63f79ca42187@googlegroups.com> <CAO7tK2fJeQQUrvgo1MzP_XNMhk2or3c6yTERwvdREjM9F9uCKw@mail.gmail.com> <CAO7tK2eN1oc0JQyr0Rd6ESy-Giq7RW0UbMNRQfXs6K6MD-9fow@mail.gmail.com> <20141025153624.GA1727@mercury.ccil.org> <CAO7tK2c3huhqOQa25rKojYUszJGre5DCrmHwCABkC0sH_cH8NQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2c3huhqOQa25rKojYUszJGre5DCrmHwCABkC0sH_cH8NQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;       spf=pass
 (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b
 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com;       dkim=pass
 header.i=@gmail.com;       dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com
Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <bpfk-list.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/post>, <mailto:bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:bpfk-list+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list
Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe>, <mailto:bpfk-list+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+972099695765+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>,
 <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -
Content-Length: 2724

This discussion seems if not nonsensical then at least not very sensical.

What is the evidence that Lojban allows syllables other than CV?

I'm not saying there isn't any, but it's not obvious what it is. The (regre=
ttable) existence of minimal pairs /Cia/:/Ciia/  seems to imply CGV syllabl=
es, and the (regrettable) existence of minimal pairs /aiC/:/aiiC/ seems to =
imply CVG syllables. But is there any other sort of syllable?

These morphophonological constraints on Lojban words seem to involve someth=
ing other than syllables -- specifically a morphophonological entity rather=
 than (as the syllable is) a phonological one. Once you get out of phonolog=
y and into morphophonology, notions of naturalness and crosslinguistic tend=
encies become less pertinent. So the morphophonological rules can be as wei=
rd and wacky as you like; tho without good reason, why would you  want them=
 to be?

But if Lojban syllabification is essentially CV (or simplex onset + simplex=
 nucleus), give or take any complications with glides, why bother with a bu=
nch of morphophonological constraints? Is it just because they are codified=
 in CLL (albeit in erroneously phonological terms) and therefore cannotbe a=
bandoned?  Would abandoning morphophonological constraints invalidate exist=
ing words or text?

I should add, btw, that even if you wanted to push the IMO untenable analys=
is of the buffer vowel being anaptyctic, it would be even more implausible =
to argue that anaptyxis occurs within a syllabic constituent, so either the=
 way the buffer vowel diagnoses syllable structure.

--And.

Jorge Llamb=EDas, On 25/10/2014 16:46:
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org <mai=
lto:cowan@mercury.ccil.org>> wrote:
>
>     Jorge Llamb=EDas scripsit:
>
>      > artmxozaiko
>      > kaktnxo
>      > mastlxa
>
>     etc. etc.
>
>     These words are far worse than their x-less equivalents.  Better to r=
eformulate
>     the grammar to allow art-mo-zai-ko.
>
>
> I see that as a feature, not a problem. The syllable "-art-" may look fin=
e to English speakers, but it's unlojbanic, lojban only allows single conso=
nant codas. "ar,tm,xo,zai,ko" is horrible, of course, consonantal syllables=
 should be avoided. Why not better make it "larmozaiko"?
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.