Re: [lojban] Re: camxes's reaction to some fu'ivla

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
> On Saturday 23 January 2010 09:14:05 Jorge Llambías wrote:
>
>> It's grammatical for example in "zo .a ierne", or "lo'u .a ierne le'u".
>
> True, but a sentence can't begin with ".a ierne", and I didn't put anything
> before "a".

The utterance ".a ierne si" is grammatical. But it's true that ".a
ierne" by itself is not.

>> (Although the phonological issues that still have to be officially
>> settled are relatively few and marginal, the BPFK should make a
>> decision about them at some point, it probably doesn't look very good
>> for Lojban that we still haven't made up our mind about them.)
>
> Can we get Nora involved? She's the third person on this committee.

We should probably make a list of outstanding issues. The ones that
come to mind are:

(1) Syllable onsets:

(a) Is the empty onset allowed or not? This affects vowel clusters
such as "oa", "aa", etc. in fu'ivla, which require an empty onset for
the second vowel.

(b) Are Ci/Cu onsets permitted in fu'ivla? Are CCi/CCu onsets
permitted? Are CCCi/CCCu onsets permitted? Are 'i/'u onsets permitted?

(c) Can i/u be onsets if the nucleus is a diphthong? (a.k.a. are
triphthongs allowed?)

(2) Syllable codas:  how many consonants are allowed in a syllable
coda? If more than one, are there any special restrictions?

(3) Syllable nuclei: (I don't think there are any issues here.)

(4) cmevla: Are the constraints for cmevla less strict than for
fu'ivla (the ones mentioned above in particular.)

Anything else?

mu'o mi'e xorxes