Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: (C)V'{i|u}V

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 12:53:37 -0400

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 [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