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

Re: [bpfk] official cmavo form

On 12/12/2014 6:27 PM, Alex Burka wrote:

I just realized you were probably using square brackets for IPA. So if I
understand correctly (relying on a Wikipedia chart here) [tuwitsku]
would be {tu uitsku}, gliding from the [u] to the [i], and [tuʔitsku] is
{tu .itsku} with a pause/glottal stop in between. As I understand it
Lojban is of the opinion that [tuitsku] is indistinguishable from
[tuwitsku].

However, the debated ?{tuitsku} is pronounced [twitsku].

mu'o mi'e la durkavore

On Friday, December 12, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Alex Burka wrote:


I'm confused. {tuuitsku} breaks up into {tu uitsku}, no matter what we
do, but if CgV is disallowed then ?{tuitsku} would be invalid. The
separated words would be {tu .itsku} with the required pause.

I apologize in advance if I'm still talking past you and answering a
different question that what you asked.

mu'o mi'e la durkavore

On Friday, December 12, 2014 at 2:16 PM, And Rosta wrote:


I meant what Lojban word(s).

If [tuisku] is something other than {tuisku}, e.g. {tu uisku}, then
{tuisku} should be illicit; otherwise it should be licit.
I have not been following this discussion, and defer to Cowan if he disagrees with anything I say, but my recollection is that we permitted "glides" to be WRITTEN in fu'ivla, but that they were considered to the equivalent of the same string with a close-comma between the two letters, so that tuitsku would be the same word as tu,itsku 

lojbab

--
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.