[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: stage-4 fu'ivla construction exception?
- To: lojban-list@lojban.org
- Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: stage-4 fu'ivla construction exception?
- From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 17:12:39 -0300
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MOji9UZnzORycr1EdTT9Ez/tCufyilTZChKhs0YhIh8=; b=N+kupsXLS1QsqN8o5+44BJCnpu5m4lhwzyuThwmj1qyOMJPTUxcELJgAKRopJwoQej F2260X51Pd7LiYy+u71H7rO6JL852hyX33P4eIu96bn4j6YPPn83yK3pLYyV+uNDUiH5 x2qARo5+FQUmMBoD34WHGhORirdMRxMl21P+A=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=VJqQGDnar5xsEJ5CjLVfPPsvUfTUPlRdmH75J1NDypQw5MIVbV5x0V+oz3tC1V/RjV YDWPTcBU7+4x7lDAsIxUMbs7GqeTUMryppHS3+pWEzZ2pN1HMWHGtIVzwnFFBqopQBeF 7tnj6+eIByOu0pBTVf/F5MvC2xQUZ8wdIhho8=
- In-reply-to: <20100309195148.GA28243@sdf.lonestar.org>
- References: <96f789a61003090826i27a6531eob88df0e3bfce7e14@mail.gmail.com> <20100309195148.GA28243@sdf.lonestar.org>
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Minimiscience <minimiscience@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Section 4.7 of the CLL, after the description of {fu'ivla} morphology, states:
>
>> Note that consonant triples or larger clusters that are not at the beginning
>> of a fu'ivla can be quite flexible, as long as all consonant **pairs** are
>> permissible.
>
> (Emphasis added.) There is a similar statement for {cmevla}, and so the CLL
> can be interpreted as prohibiting "ndj" et alii only from use in {lujvo}. The
> last time I asked about this, I was told that the BPFK has yet to decide
> whether this restriction actually applies to {fu'ivla} or not.
Yes, CLL is unclear on that point, but what could possibly be the
rationale for disallowing "ndj" in lujvo while allowing it in fu'ivla?
Common sense dictates that phonotactic constraints should apply
equally to all words, whatever the exact wording in CLL is.
mu'o mi'e xorxes