Re: [bpfk] official cmavo form

[John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>]

Jorge Llambías scripsit:

> To me allowing "iibroda" while rejecting "iibro da" doesn't make a lot of
> sense. It shouldn't be a matter of word class, we either allow the syllable
> "ii" or we don't. Also, if "ii" is an attitudinal, "ii'a" could be one as
> well.

I agree that neither "iibroda" nor "iibro da" makes sense.  I continue
to believe that ".ii" and ".uu" should be treated as anomalous cmavo
(in the same way that "zkzkzkkzkzt" is an anomalous cmevla), and
that "ii" and "uu" should be disallowed otherwise.

> If the words "ii" and "uu" are to be treated as complete anomalies, then
> the camxes morphology may need to be rethought. It might then make sense to
> allow syllables without onsets, treat ia, ie, io, iu as bisyllabic, and
> allow ae, ao, ea, eo, eu, oa, oe, ou as well.

That's backward toward Loglan.  We introduced /h/ precisely to escape from
all that.

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan@ccil.org
Híggledy-pìggledy / XML programmers
Try to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes;
Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is
Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus.

-- 
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.