[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bpfk] camxes and syllabification in zi'evla



On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

Can we talk about "morphophonological syllables"? If yes, then assume this discussion is basically about morphophonological syllables rather than phonological ones. 

Actually, that's not quite true. We do need to identify valid onsets in order to determine words, but this discussion wasn't really about onsets. 

I would have to agree that if the buffer vowel was real, all this discussion would be mostly nonsensical. So I would say that the buffer vowel is basically a myth. None of the phonological constraints make much sense if there was a buffer vowel. I don't think I've ever heard anyone speak lojban with a buffer vowel, and it would probably sound very confusing. Without a buffer vowel, it does make sense to limit the amount of consonant clustering that can occur. If there was a buffer vowel, the morphophonological syllable could still be onset-nucleus-coda as now, but with the coda allowed to contain as many consonants as you wanted. That's not how my dialect of lojban works though.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
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.