durka42 wrote:
> Er... how do you intend to pronounce this? There seems to be a bug in
> jbovlaste -- jbofi'e and camxes don't accept this as a word.

Sorry, I was wrong -- they do accept it as a word if you ask for "cmavo"
or "cmavo_form" directly.

Comment #3: Re: morphology

guskant (Sun Oct 19 14:11:02 2014)

durka42 wrote: > durka42 wrote: > > Er... how do you intend to pronounce this? There seems to be a bug in > > jbovlaste -- jbofi'e and camxes don't accept this as a word. > > Sorry, I was wrong -- they do accept it as a word if you ask for "cmavo" > or "cmavo_form" directly. According to CLL3.4, this is not a cmavo form: "the ten following ones [diphtongs beginning with i or u] are used only as stand-alone words and in Lojbanized names and borrowings." Was the rule changed, and the CLL should be corrected? Where is the change documented? I would not agree to such a new rule, because I guess most listeners could not distinguish "jie'e'e" and "je'e'e".

Comment #4: Re: morphology Alex Burka (Sun Oct 19 15:48:42 2014) gusnikantu wrote: > durka42 wrote: > > durka42 wrote: > > > Er... how do you intend to pronounce this? There seems to be a bug in > > > jbovlaste -- jbofi'e and camxes don't accept this as a word. > > > > Sorry, I was wrong -- they do accept it as a word if you ask for "cmavo" > > or "cmavo_form" directly. > > According to CLL3.4, this is not a cmavo form: "the ten following ones > [diphtongs beginning with i or u] are used only as stand-alone words and > in Lojbanized names and borrowings." Was the rule changed, and the CLL > should be corrected? Where is the change documented? > > I would not agree to such a new rule, because I guess most listeners could > not distinguish "jie'e'e" and "je'e'e". jbovlaste now uses the camxes morphology. It apparently allows consonant+glide clusters, though I can't find documentation of this in the BPFK morphology pages. Comment #5: Re: morphology gleki (Sun Oct 19 16:13:13 2014) durka42 wrote: > gusnikantu wrote: > > durka42 wrote: > > > durka42 wrote: > > > > Er... how do you intend to pronounce this? There seems to be a bug > in > > > > jbovlaste -- jbofi'e and camxes don't accept this as a word. > > > > > > Sorry, I was wrong -- they do accept it as a word if you ask for > "cmavo" > > > or "cmavo_form" directly. > > > > According to CLL3.4, this is not a cmavo form: "the ten following ones > > [diphtongs beginning with i or u] are used only as stand-alone words and > > in Lojbanized names and borrowings." Was the rule changed, and the CLL > > should be corrected? Where is the change documented? > > > > I would not agree to such a new rule, because I guess most listeners > could > > not distinguish "jie'e'e" and "je'e'e". > > > jbovlaste now uses the camxes morphology. It apparently allows > consonant+glide clusters, though I can't find documentation of this in > the BPFK morphology pages. I also wouldn't agree in unblocking C[iu]V space and making jie available. It must be a mistake somwhere in the code. Comment #6: Re: morphology Curtis W Franks (Sun Oct 26 07:08:18 2014) gleki wrote: > durka42 wrote: > > gusnikantu wrote: > > > durka42 wrote: > > > > durka42 wrote: > > > > > Er... how do you intend to pronounce this? There seems to be a bug > > in > > > > > jbovlaste -- jbofi'e and camxes don't accept this as a word. > > > > > > > > Sorry, I was wrong -- they do accept it as a word if you ask for > > "cmavo" > > > > or "cmavo_form" directly. > > > > > > According to CLL3.4, this is not a cmavo form: "the ten following ones > > > [diphtongs beginning with i or u] are used only as stand-alone words > and > > > in Lojbanized names and borrowings." Was the rule changed, and the CLL > > > should be corrected? Where is the change documented? > > > > > > I would not agree to such a new rule, because I guess most listeners > > could > > > not distinguish "jie'e'e" and "je'e'e". > > > > > > jbovlaste now uses the camxes morphology. It apparently allows > > consonant+glide clusters, though I can't find documentation of this in > > the BPFK morphology pages. > > > I also wouldn't agree in unblocking C[iu]V space and making jie > available. It must be a mistake somwhere in the code. I personally do not mind it and believe that the phonology/phonotactics/morphology of Lojban should be freed up in a few ways (including this one). I also can distinguish easily between this word and all other words except "j!ie'e'e", where "!" represents any nonempty string consisting of only "i"'s. I have no problems with this word. I in fact like it. That having been said, I will concede to the opinion of the community. I am happy to have pointed out this issue, at the least. :)