From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Nov 29 18:07:50 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 30 Nov 2002 02:07:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 26223 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2002 02:07:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2002 02:07:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao02.cox.net) (68.1.17.243) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2002 02:07:49 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20021130020747.XQKE2203.lakemtao02.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 21:07:47 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129210004.03152dd0@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 21:00:09 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Fu'ivla diphthongs was: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab >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 lojbab@lojban.org 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