Re: [bpfk] type-3 fu'ivla with different kinds of rafsi

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
> Jorge Llambías wrote:
>>
>> I wish we could come to a consensus on this. On the one hand, I tend
>> to agree with John in principle, on the other hand, these forms are
>> already quite widespread in practice, and nobody but John (and,
>> depending on the day, me)
>
> Me, too, for what my opinion is worth.  And very strongly at that.

Nice to be on the same side of an argument for a change.

> One of the key mods we made from TLI Loglan to Lojban was to eliminate the
> corresponding monosyllable CVVs, which in turn led us to add the apostrophe
> to the language.  Going back on that essentially removes the justification
> for adding the apostrophe,

That's basically my argument. I would have opposed the change if I had
been there at the time, since introducing the apostrophe/x distinction
seems worse than the problem you were trying to solve, but I don't see
how we could go back on that at this point.

> and fu'ivla are by intent NOT an important enough
> part of the language to drive design.

I actually argue from the opposite end. I consider fu'ivla a very
important and ordinary part of the language, and therefore they should
follow the same phonotactic constraints as the rest of the words of
the language. That's why I don't care for consonantal syllables
either, which were introduced specifically for type-3 fu'ivla, since
they don't occur in cmavo/gismu/lujvo.

> I dunno about you, but I cannot tell the difference between siV and ciV
> because of palatalization.

For me, those are easier than keeping plain c/j distinct.

> And IIRC, native speakers of languages without
> an l/r distinction have especial problems with those letters followed by iV
> and uV diphthongs.
>
> We shouldn't be making the language harder to speak in order to make it
> easier to coin fu'ivla (I'm sure Pierre disagrees, of course).

Lojban phonology is hard for them anyway, with or without the CiV
syllables. I just want phonotactics to be as consistent as possible
across all words.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.