Subject: Re: [lojban] Fu'ivla diphthongs was: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 21:00:09 -0500

>Okay, I've found in chapter 4 of the Book the word {kuarka}, and its type-3
>version {saskrkuarka}, which it claims are valid fu'ivla. If indeed {ua}
>cannot occur in fu'ivla, as it cannot in lujvo, then this has to be either
>{ku'arka} or {ku,arka}. Which is it?

It is NOT that "ua" is not permitted in a fu'ivla (I can't specifically 
recall a prohibition, at least), but that it is not clear that kuarka, 
ku,arka, and ku'arka can be considered as *different* words because of the 
alternate orthography (which would be unusable if we allowed all VV's to 
exist in both diphthong and non-diphthong forms).

lojbab

-- 
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org