From araizen@newmail.net Thu Aug 02 19:15:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 3 Aug 2001 02:15:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 78063 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2001 02:15:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Aug 2001 02:15:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n31.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.2.220) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2001 02:15:36 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: araizen@newmail.net Received: from [10.1.10.93] by hp.egroups.com with NNFMP; 03 Aug 2001 02:15:36 -0000 Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 02:15:33 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: (C)V'{i|u}V Message-ID: <9kd1g5+u5fk@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 693 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 62.0.180.180 From: "Adam Raizen" la and cusku di'e > Are cmavo of the form (C)V'{i|u}V (e.g. ba'io, bi'ui) legal? Yes, I don't see why not. The current morphology algorithm takes a string without any consonant clusters and breaks it before each consonant into cmavo, and the above cmavo pass without a problem. Also, I think that there's no reason that words like "bia" /bja/, "bue" /bwe/, etc., are invalid, for the same reason as above. While we're on morphology, the morphology algorithm (http://www.lojban.org/files/software/BRKWORDS.TXT) 2.3)c) says that ".iy." and ".uy." are "reserved" (not that they're an error). Reserved for what? Otherwise ".uy." could be a good lerfu word for the letter 'w'. mu'o mi'e adam