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

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 00:04:42 -0500

At 09:22 PM 11/29/02 -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
>On Friday 29 November 2002 21:00, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> > 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).
>
>As I understand it, in standard orthography, commas make no difference to
>word identity, e.g. spatrkinua=spat,r,kinu,a, even though they are accented
>differently. So kuarka=ku,arka but kuarka<>ku'arka.
>
>In fu'ivla, SO ia-iu and ua-uu are unchanged in alternate orthography, and SO
>i'a-i'u and u'a-u'u are AO i,a-i,u and u,a-u,u. So:
>SO kuarka = AO kuarka
>SO ku'arka = AO ku,arka
>SO ku,arka = AO kuarka , since the comma is ignored in SO.

Precisely. So ua is allowed in kuarka. Now repeat the analysis for 
srutio/sruti'o.

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