No. Although I also much favor the idea that "gV" should be only at the beginning of a word, it is not the current topic. I just repeated the idea of xorxes from an aesthetic point of view:
Le jeudi 15 janvier 2015 07:21:43 UTC+9, xorxes a écrit :
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Alex Burka
<abu...@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:
Only within cmevla, right? Otherwise you'd be able to write "tuitsku" and get two words.
"tuitsku" would indeed unambiguously represent two words "tu" followed by "uitsku". That's why I said that for aesthetic reasons one could also require that the ii or uu be fully within the same word. (I should also say that the V has to be a vowel, not a glide.)
"Requiring that the ii or uu be fully within the same word" will keep "Cii/uuV..." string reformed from Ci/uV*-fu'ivla being in one word. However, "(C)V(i/u)CCii/uuV..." string reformed from (C)V(i/u)CCi/uV*-fu'ivla is not the case, and split into two words even under the requirement.
Among the fu'ivla to which "Ci/uV -> Cii/uuV" method cannot be applied because of separation into two words, the ones we cannot apply "Ci/uV -> Ci/u'V" method either are now tagged with asterix:
eskua, februa*, fiakre*, fiesta*, kuadranta, kuaidzi, madjio*, matriocka*, patriarko*, reskuamata*, restuatara*, tiatro*, tuitsku
The reasons for it are lujvo-nization (febru'a, fi'akre, fi'esta, madji'o, matri'ocka, ti'atro) or separation into two words (pa tri'arko, re sku'amata, re stu'atara).