Robin Lee Powell wrote:
If we could discern the problem cmene as we used them, we wouldn't be in this mess. We would substitute LY or something like the CLL suggests. Any proposed solution that involves treating "la"-containing cmene differently from others is no better than the status quo.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.
Arguments for keeping the status quo seem to go along the lines of "it will be better in the future... You must have faith, young one. Future Lojbanists will not have this difficulty." Yeah, I don't buy it. Future Lojbanists WILL be coining cmene on the fly, in print and in speech, for exactly the same reasons we are now. Appeals to the salvation of the murky future also don't hold much water for me.
It would be Just Great if there were an alternative that didn't involve such a big change to the language, or any better alternative to the Dot Rule. I just can't find one. The status quo is broken.
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.
~mark 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.