On 14 Dec 2014 02:57, "John Cowan" <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
>
> And Rosta scripsit:
> > That is, it's a bad idea for
> > [tuitsku] to be ambiguous between /tu witsku/ and /twitsku/, and that
> > ambiguity should be remedied and nullified by forbidding one of them.
>
> The current prescription forbids both of them: "tuitsku" has the illicit
> CgV form, and "tu uitsku" has be [tu?witsku]. I'm good with this.
> Lojban's phonotactics are as arbitrary as every other feature of the
> language, and I see no need to liberalize them.
Is "tuuitsku" (one word) also illicit? If not, then [tuitsku] is "tuuitsku" (and *tuitsku is rightly illicit, if putatively distinct from "tuuitsku"). Otherwise, the failure of [tuitsku] to realize any word constitutes an arbitrary prohibition, and it is in the nature of arbitrary prohibitions that there is a need to liberalize them. (Not necessarily an irresistible need: conservatism may resist it, due to feeling that the cost of change outweighs the benefit of liberalization.)
--And.
--