At 04:48 PM 8/3/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
Adam:
> Also, I think that there's no reason that words like "bia" /bja/,
> "bue" /bwe/, etc., are invalid, for the same reason as above.
How lovely to think that monosyllabic cmavo might still be available,
not only for new cmavo but as allomorphs of existing high frequency
disyllabic ones. But I recall from discussions from a while back
that {bue} was considered an unofficial but valid spelling of
{bu'e}, so this leads me to wonder whether /bue/ (as opposed to
/bu'e ~ bu,e/ truly is legal.
bue and bu,e are considered alternate orthographic/phonologic forms of the same word.
-- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org