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

From: Richard Curnow <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 23:00:45 +0100

coi rodo poi le lojbo vlataiske cu cinri ke'a

la lojbab. pu cusku:

> 
> So I guess I was wrong and jbofi'e matches the baseline standard, and the 
> word resolution algorithm needs to reflect this.
> 

Phew! Well that's a relief anyway.

In the other reply to my posting of yesterday,

On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 06:25:36PM -0500, Michal Wallace wrote:
> I believe the issue here is that "ue" is not a valid lojban dipthong,
> whereas "ai" is.. If "ue" isn't a dipthong, is must be two syllables,
> and therefore the same as bu,e or bu'e.. But "bai" sounds like "bye",
> not "ba ee", so if you want "ba ee" you need a comma or apostrophe.
> 

So this raises a new question, should we treat any vowel pair that is
not a valid diphthong as though it has a hidden comma in it?

ai, au, ei and oi would always have to be left as they are.

Others (aa,ae,ao,ea,ee,eo,eu,oa,oe,oo,ou) _could_ be automatically
treated as though they have a comma (==apostrophe). But is this
entertained by the baseline?

The remainder (the 10 starting with "i" or "u") are more tricky, because
they are already valid when used stand-alone as cmavo, or within fu'ivla
or cmene. So I guess the question is : in a word that would be a lujvo
had the pair been "ai" instead, or a cmavo starting with a consonant,
does the baseline treat these 10 pairs treated as though they have a
comma (=apostrophe) in them? i.e. could the word jbofi'e be shortened
to jbofie, on the basis that "ie" is invalid in a lujvo so the hidden
comma (=apostrophe) can be re-introduced without ambiguity?

co'o mi'e ritcrd.

-- 
R.P.Curnow,Weston-super-Mare,UK |lo samskiro'a cu simsa lo'e glefau
http://www.rrbcurnow.freeuk.com/ |isa'e le xamgu cu tcetcexau ije
[email-masked] |le xlali cu xagmau lenu nomei