And Rosta scripsit:
> Why must Lojban have onsets and syllabification? /Cia/ is problematic
> only if /Ci-/ must constitute an onset.
It's settled that "ia" is /ja/.
> >I see no problems with {ie'o} as a cmavo form.
I agree.
> How about {a'ua}?
By avoiding things like this, we keep Lojban /h/ safely ambisyllabic.
Allowing /ahwa/ means we have to choose between coda /h/ (hard for
anglophones and many others) and onset /hw/ (hard for most anglophones,
who no longer have a /w/ ~ /W/ distinction).
We have no shortage of possible cmavo. Let's not go toward hC or Ch
clusters (where C = any consonant including /j/ and /w/).
> I think Lojban already has way more phonotactic constraints than is
> necessary...
I wish we had more, but our lujvo-making machinery prevents some that
would be really useful, like not allowing both "denbro" and "dembro".
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org
What asininity could I have uttered that they applaud me thus?
--Phocion, Greek orator
--
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.