Received: from mail-qa0-f62.google.com ([209.85.216.62]:59370) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XgMoI-0004xT-0F; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:56:27 -0700 Received: by mail-qa0-f62.google.com with SMTP id n8sf17207qaq.17 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:56:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from: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; bh=moXzzpQ/3m/7dHAC4FQLLIcuVO16C4ds5H3IgzhvahU=; b=GbWkXOb+3CYhDbOFy2j4I0HJz+jgUqMNgt+1Ihqhzzfj5ggpsssciosMmdc7cJFkkG ZpWc7cfzKFM3tT5CC3YKt9+tP4SNsIxz3fbX0JvHpQ7roRbvAuGo6ywFZMjhdyWyKlYh ZNwSLXukjhU58o6Afh3nIAfAVnRtcTSZkZd0+lnKwJ8o8iJsgGRttWhbUcEvSUF2zGkE wsAtaD9Vfs0UlFLNl82NdvxUWRCXKol/0zMSHga6qpRPvKNZOZOQtIEoTXQBfjZf/zxP gU7Fq/RgV0JNcpOQibU2TMBqZKqtZy8AbjwPgSbp7GY2XLATCEBFS2UpjZsxonIulJIK 4sVQ== X-Received: by 10.50.103.6 with SMTP id fs6mr180658igb.5.1413849375210; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:56:15 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.107.167.132 with SMTP id q126ls60241ioe.5.gmail; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:56:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.42.114.212 with SMTP id h20mr9329760icq.19.1413849375052; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:56:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-x230.google.com (mail-ob0-x230.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id tr5si688717igb.1.2014.10.20.16.56.14 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:56:15 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230; Received: by mail-ob0-f176.google.com with SMTP id m8so94863obr.7 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:56:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.63.79 with SMTP id e15mr25803777oes.31.1413849374576; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:56:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.110.199 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:56:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.110.199 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:56:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20141020194244.GK14499@mercury.ccil.org> References: <5444FEBF.10200@gmx.de> <544507CD.9050608@gmail.com> <20141020141316.GD14499@mercury.ccil.org> <54452760.2090305@gmail.com> <20141020194244.GK14499@mercury.ccil.org> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 00:56:14 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] official cmavo form From: And Rosta To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.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 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230 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: X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c20e5cbcd3110505e37507 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - Content-Length: 7019 --001a11c20e5cbcd3110505e37507 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 20 Oct 2014 20:42, "John Cowan" wrote: > > And Rosta scripsit: > > > >It's settled that "ia" is /ja/. > > > > Does /j/ (corresponding to orthographic rather than ) actually > > exist? Are minimal pairs possible with /i/:/j/? > > I should have written [ja]. But must Lojban so specify the duration of the /i/ in /ia/? That seems unnecessarily pernickety, given the quite proper laxity of all other realization rules in Lojban. If, rather, what is settled is that /i/ in /ia/ is an onset, then I am asking why that must be so. > And no, there is no separate /j/ phoneme, > and I hope there will be none. An alternate analysis is possible by > which there is /j/ and /w/ but not /h/; that is, "kai" is /kaj/ and > "ka'i" is /kai/ with epenthetic [h]. But I see no particular merit in > this analysis. A merit would be getting rid of /'/ as a phoneme -- a good outcome given its anomalousness (not counting as a consonant for morphological purposes). The illicitness of /w%w/ could be accounted for by a rule that /%/ can't be adjacent to a vowel and that /w/ is both a consonant and a vowel. > > > These problems arise when {a'ua} is analysed as something other than > > /a'ua/. If Lojban has no /u/:/w/ contrast -- as the impossibility of > > minimal pairs would show -- then /ahwa/ and /awha/ are not possible > > analyses. I think syllabification is likely an unnecessary complication, > > but I don't see why /'/ in /a'ua/ couldn't be ambisyllabic. > > Again I should have written [ahwa] with square brackets. My concern > is that this form would decay to [aWa] and then be merged with [awa]. But the contrast-preserving Lojbanist should instead say [ahua], or, more realistically, [aWua] or [axua]. Actually, the contrast-preserving Lojbanist should of course say [aTua], since it is well-established that [h] is not a reliably contrastive realization of /'/. > > > The simplest phonological analysis of Lojban is one in which there are > > no clusters at all. The only phonotactic rules necessary are that a > > C many be adjacent only to a V, a V may be adjacent only to a C or a > > glide V of a type other than its own, and /%/ (or however we symbolize > > the buffer vowel) may be adjacent only to a C. > > That would still exclude "a'ua", because there is no valid place to insert a %. I was assuming that under these phonological rules, /'/ would be a (morphologically irregular) consonant and /u/ a vowel, with nothing counting as both vowel and consonant. --And. -- 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 email 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. --001a11c20e5cbcd3110505e37507 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 20 Oct 2014 20:42, "John Cowan" <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
>
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > >It's settled that "ia" is /ja/.
> >
> > Does /j/ (corresponding to orthographic <i> rather than <= ;j>) actually
> > exist? Are minimal pairs possible with /i/:/j/?
>
> I should have written [ja].=C2=A0

But must Lojban so specify the duration of the /i/ in /ia/? = That seems unnecessarily pernickety, given the quite proper laxity of all o= ther realization rules in Lojban. If, rather, what is settled is that /i/ i= n /ia/ is an onset, then I am asking why that must be so.

> And no, there is no separate /j/ phoneme,
> and I hope there will be none.=C2=A0 An alternate analysis is possible= by
> which there is /j/ and /w/ but not /h/; that is, "kai" is /k= aj/ and
> "ka'i" is /kai/ with epenthetic [h].=C2=A0 But I see no = particular merit in
> this analysis.

A merit would be getting rid of /'/ as a phoneme -- a go= od outcome given its anomalousness (not counting as a consonant for morphol= ogical purposes). The illicitness of /w%w/ could be accounted for by a rule= that /%/ can't be adjacent to a vowel and that /w/ is both a consonant= and a vowel.

>
> > These problems arise when {a'ua} is analysed as something oth= er than
> > /a'ua/. If Lojban has no /u/:/w/ contrast -- as the impossibi= lity of
> > minimal pairs would show -- then /ahwa/ and /awha/ are not possib= le
> > analyses. I think syllabification is likely an unnecessary compli= cation,
> > but I don't see why /'/ in /a'ua/ couldn't be amb= isyllabic.
>
> Again I should have written [ahwa] with square brackets.=C2=A0 My conc= ern
> is that this form would decay to [aWa] and then be merged with [awa].<= /p>

But the contrast-preserving Lojbanist should instead say [ah= ua], or, more realistically, [aWua] or [axua]. Actually, the contrast-prese= rving Lojbanist should of course say [aTua], since it is well-established t= hat [h] is not a reliably contrastive realization of /'/.

>
> > The simplest phonological analysis of Lojban is one in which ther= e are
> > no clusters at all. The only phonotactic rules necessary are that= a
> > C many be adjacent only to a V, a V may be adjacent only to a C o= r a
> > glide V of a type other than its own, and /%/ (or however we symb= olize
> > the buffer vowel) may be adjacent only to a C.
>
> That would still exclude "a'ua", because there is no val= id place to insert a %.

I was assuming that under these phonological rules, /'/ = would be a (morphologically irregular) consonant and /u/ a vowel, with noth= ing counting as both vowel and consonant.

--And.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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 ht= tp://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--001a11c20e5cbcd3110505e37507--