From rpc@digitalkingdom.org Thu Nov 29 13:30:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: richard@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 29 Nov 2001 21:30:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 27630 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2001 21:30:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2001 21:30:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scrabble.freeuk.net) (212.126.144.6) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Nov 2001 21:30:42 -0000 Received: from du-011-0181.freeuk.com ([212.126.154.181] helo=rrbcurnow.freeuk.com) by scrabble.freeuk.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 169YlU-0000M7-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 21:30:41 +0000 Received: from richard by rrbcurnow.freeuk.com with local (Exim 2.02 #2) id 169YMO-00004P-00; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 21:04:44 +0000 Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 21:04:44 +0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] srutio and ckankua Message-ID: <20011129210444.B240@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com References: <0111271721590I.03849@neofelis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0111271721590I.03849@neofelis>; from phma@oltronics.net on Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 05:21:59PM -0500 X-Mailer: mutt/1.2i (Linux 2.0.36 i486) Sender: Richard Curnow From: Richard Curnow X-Yahoo-Profile: richard_p_curnow 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/ |