Re: [lojban] Dot-side and non-cmevla?

[Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com>]

Dot-side is only concerned with cmevla which are required to have a final ".", in that those types of names must also have a leading ".", nothing more, nothing less.

It does not require "." for cmene which would not need them in the old school.

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:18 PM, H. Felton <lojban707@fagricipni.com> wrote:

Regarding the dot-side issue: was a consensus ever reached on
the pro-dot-side whether cmene that contained the sequence
"la" not preceded by a consonant, but which were not cmevla
needed dot-side "protection"?; eg, "la labno"; "la xrula"; or
if "la ka trina" is valid, then a name containing "la'u" should
also be valid; finally, tanru, lujvo, and fu'ivla can also
contain the sequence "la" not preceded by a consonant.
I wouldn't think that these names would need dot-side
protection; only those which are cmevla.

--
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.

-- 
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

-- 
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.