From richard@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com Tue Jan 09 14:46:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: richard@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 9 Jan 2001 22:46:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 97979 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2001 22:40:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Jan 2001 22:40:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net) (195.40.1.40) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Jan 2001 22:40:48 -0000 Received: from rrbcurnow.freeuk.com (tnt-14-9.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.9]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F39DC538D1 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 22:40:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from richard by rrbcurnow.freeuk.com with local (Exim 2.02 #2) id 14G7PU-00002K-00 for lojban@egroups.com; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 22:38:32 +0000 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 22:38:32 +0000 To: Lojban List Subject: Commas & vowels : to summarise then... Message-ID: <20010109223831.A134@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com> Reply-To: Richard Curnow Mail-Followup-To: Lojban List Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i-nntp From: Richard Curnow My understanding of the recent discussions is that a comma between two vowels is treated as being equivalent to an apostrophe, both in pronunciation and in its morphological function. A comma between consonants is used to indicate a syllable break. So a word like "ba,irgau" is treated as a lujvo, identical to "ba'irgau". Since the letter 'y' is treated as a vowel in cmene, a word like "biy,on" is a valid cmene, equivalent to "biy'on". However, commas can't appear between the letter y and a consonant in any type of word. Is there anything wrong with the above reasoning? ---------------------------------------- On a separate topic, there was a discussion a few weeks back about the word "iglu" and its relatives. The stated problem is that the word can break up, with the "glu" part attaching to the following word to form a longer lujvo. There was also a discussion subsequent to that about why lujvo can't break up in a similar way. The answer to this is that any cmavo stressed on the final syllable has to be followed by a pause. I assume that means a monosyllabic stressed cmavo has to be followed by a pause too. These two threads seem to me to be in conflict. If the word "iglu" is treated as a fu'ivla, the stress would be on the "i" (hence "I"). The 2nd conclusion means this can't be misunderstood as "I" + "glu" (+ whatever follows), because there would have to be a pause after "I" if that were a cmavo. Coincidentally, "iglu" fails the slinku'i test anyway, but the above reasoning seems to apply to "aiglu" which doesn't. So my conclusion is that this type of fu'ivla break-up is bogus, and words like "aiglu", "a'iglu" etc are valid fu'ivla. "iglu" itself isn't (fails slinku'i). Is this reasonable, or have I missed something important? co'o mi'e ritcyd. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard P. Curnow rpc@myself.com Weston-super-Mare United Kingdom http://go.to/richard.curnow/