Re: [lojban] Re: "la" rule

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

Will someone please remind me what horrible things happen if we simply drop the restriction on
cmene and make no other changes (that is, live as we do now -- with no reported problems).  We
might take a vocative as a sumti or, less likely, a sumti as a vocative.  C.early, humans sort
these out, shouldn't the parser do so as well? 

--- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 07:08:42PM +0600, Yanis Batura wrote:
> > On 13.11.2006, 18:47, MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com wrote:
> > 
> > I would recommend a simple yet easy to learn solution that won't
> > distort the design of the language: saying {lua} for any
> > occurrence of {la} in cmene, {luai} for {lai} and {duoi} for
> > {doi}.
> 
> That assumes people are capable of noticing the presence of those
> syllables, when clearly we're not.
> 
> > For me, the possibility of saying a consonant-starting cmene after
> > {la} without glottal stop overweighs all disadvantages of the
> > rule. The matter of taste, of course.
> 
> Indeed; I think that's totally insane.  :-)
> 
> -Robin
> 
> -- 
> http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
> Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
> Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
> 
>