From phma@oltronics.net Tue Nov 27 14:24:26 2001
Return-Path: <phma@ixazon.dynip.com>
X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 27 Nov 2001 22:24:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 5551 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2001 22:24:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167)
  by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Nov 2001 22:24:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (216.189.29.225)
  by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Nov 2001 22:24:25 -0000
Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500)
  id E8B643C54C; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:22:00 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Reply-To: phma@oltronics.net
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: srutio and ckankua
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:21:59 -0500
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <0111271721590I.03849@neofelis>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@oltronics.net>

Both these wordoids contain vowel pairs that are invalid in lujvo but valid 
in cmavo and cmene. Yet vlatai calls {ckankua} a valid type-4 but rejects 
{srutio} as invalid. Why? The only difference I can see is that {sruti'o} is 
a valid lujvo, whereas {ckanku'a} is a slinku'i.

phma