Re: [lojban] Cool

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Ivo Doko <ivo.doko@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 August 2010 17:35, Stela Selckiku <selckiku@gmail.com> wrote:
>> {xamgrkulu}
>> {zabnrkulu}
>> {jikcrkulu}
>> {cninrkulu}
>
> I don't know about you but to me the consonant clusters {mgrk},
> {bnrk}, {kcrk} and {nrk} don't seem very Lojbanic and regardless of
> whether they're Lojbanic or not they're definitely a bit difficult to
> pronounce...

They are Lojbanic in the sense of being officially valid, but I would
agree with you to their being un-Lojbanic in another sense. :) (I
don't find them too difficult to pronounce though, just not nice.)

> It would be near impossible to pronounce those clusters properly,
> instead you'd probably say {xamgyrkulu}, {zabnyrkulu}, {jikcyrkulu}
> and {cninyrkulu} anyway, so why not write it like that?

fu'ivla can't have "y", but the good news is that inserting a "y" in
that position can never cause ambiguity. I think one of my proposals
was to allow such forms as replacement for the type-3 fu'ivla forms,
and eliminate vocalic consonants altogether.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.