On 19 Dec 2014 01:57, "guskant" <gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wrote:
> Currently, "2. disallow CgV in cmevla/fu'ivla/ma'ovla" is predominant.
>
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1kJLBvjkoDpmvA9vJS_lf8SpCYAZvY4bMx1pj8uhWqRs/viewanalytics
>
>
>
> As a supporter of "1.3.1. allow CgV in cmevla, disallow it in fu'ivla/ma'ovla", I make a comment here:
>
> CgV in cmevla does not affect lexical analysis, while that in fu'ivla/ma'ovla does. Disallowing CgV in cmevla is very strong restriction. It affects not only traditional names like {nitcion}, or popular names like {tuitr}, but also a standard of lojbanization of words of natural languages. CgV in cmevla sometimes makes things easy. For example, many Chinese names have CgV-like phoneme strings. Chinese "Huan", "Han" and "Hu An" are distinguished from each other. If CgV is disallowed in cmevla, it will be difficult to find out a reasonable standard of lojbanization of them.
I'd be in favour of (3), defining CGV as equivalent to CGGV (the same G in each case). The equivalence is certainly orthographic; I can't say if it's also phonological, because there is no credible consensus analysis of Lojban phonology. Any potential phonetic contrast between CGV & CGGV is feeble, and hence a phonological contrast between them is undesirable.
This then allows CGV in cmevla. Whether it allows CGV in other sorts of word depends entirely and independently on whether words can begin with GV, which would be a matter for a different poll.
--And.
--