Subject: Re: [lojban] srutio and ckankua

From: Richard Curnow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 21:04:44 +0000

On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 05:21:59PM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> 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.
> 

We had a discussion some months back (probably in August?) which
concluded that words like {srutio} were illegal, because they had lujvo
consonant forms but contained vowel pairings that are illegal in that
context. (The original case being discussed was {jbofie}). I recall
the thread started off as yet another attempt to clarify the rules about
commas and whether they could be treated as equivalent to apostrophes in
the right situations.

As for {ckankua}, the point here is that {tockankua} is not a lujvo
(again, it contains an invalid vowel pair), so {ckankua} does not fail
the slinku'i test. Hence I think it is a valid stage-4 fu'ivla.

Well, anyway, this is the logic inside vlatai, FWIW :-)

-- 
Richard.
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Richard P. Curnow | C++: n., An octopus made by
Weston-super-Mare, UK | nailing extra legs on a cat.
http://www.rrbcurnow.freeuk.com/ |