Fu'ivla diphthongs was: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy

[Pierre Abbat <phma@webjockey.net>]

On Friday 29 November 2002 20:18, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> At 01:41 PM 11/29/02 -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> >what about {cipnrxakuila}?
>
> I dunno?  What about it?  If someone has said it is invalid, what was their
> reason?

No one said it's invalid that I know of, but it contains a diphthong that 
does not appear in lujvo.

According to chapter 3:

The first four diphthongs above (``ai'', ``ei'', ``oi'', and ``au'', the ones 
with off-glides) are freely used in most types of Lojban words; the ten 
following ones are used only as stand-alone words and in Lojbanized names and 
borrowings; and the last two (``iy'' and ``uy'') are used only in Lojbanized 
names.

Thus a fu'ivla can contain {ua} or {io} or {ui}. So {srutio} (a fu'ivla, 
discarded in favor of {strutione} for "ostrich") is distinct from {sruti'o} 
(a lujvo: "penumbra", maybe?), and {ckankua} (a fu'ivla: "skunk") is distinct 
from {ckanku'a} (a valsrslinku'i).

As to the TLI alternate orthography, {i'o} in a fu'ivla is written as {i,o}, 
but in a lujvo {i'o} is written as {io}.

> I don't pretend to be more a master of fu'ivla than others.  So far as I
> know, however, the rafsi fu'ivla like that one all work.

By work, do you mean that you can make words like {cipnrxakuilykanla}?

phma