From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Aug 03 10:00:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 3 Aug 2001 17:00:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 21927 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2001 17:00:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Aug 2001 17:00:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-2.cais.net) (205.252.14.72) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Aug 2001 17:00:13 -0000 Received: from user.lojban.org (dynamic87.cl7.cais.net [205.177.20.87]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f73H08X33523 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 13:00:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010803124308.00bb95b0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 12:53:37 -0400 To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: (C)V'{i|u}V In-Reply-To: References: <9kd1g5+u5fk@eGroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 04:48 PM 8/3/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote: >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. bue and bu,e are considered alternate orthographic/phonologic forms of the same word. -- 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