From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Fri Aug 03 08:49:56 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 3 Aug 2001 15:49:56 -0000
Received: (qmail 33242 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2001 15:49:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Aug 2001 15:49:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta05-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.45) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2001 15:49:23 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.158]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010803154921.VGPV20588.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 16:49:21 +0100
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: (C)V'{i|u}V
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 16:48:32 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMMECJEIAA.a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <9kd1g5+u5fk@eGroups.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>

Adam:
> Also, I think that there's no reason that words like "bia" /bja/,
> "bue" /bwe/, etc., are invalid, for the same reason as above.

How lovely to think that monosyllabic cmavo might still be available,
not only for new cmavo but as allomorphs of existing high frequency
disyllabic ones. But I recall from discussions from a while back
that {bue} was considered an unofficial but valid spelling of
{bu'e}, so this leads me to wonder whether /bue/ (as opposed to
/bu'e ~ bu,e/ truly is legal.

--And.