> zozeizeizeizeifaho wrote:
> > ues wrote:
> > > Thanks for this. I am glad that fu'ivla are allowed to be used in
> > initial
> > > and non-initial states now. Somehow I had never ran across any like
> > > before. One thing though. Doesn't the removal of a final vowel in
> > fu'ivla,
> > > as in "ka'orta" -> "ka'orty" require a final vowel blocking rule
> > > to gismu? Is this just for certain fu'ivla?
> > This hasn't been formally decided, but afaik, ccV[']VCV and CV[']VC/CV
> > spaces have been kept free of final vowel conflicts so far.
> > Shapes like ccVCVCV and CVC/CVCV don't need a rule like this since
> > final vowel is never removed.
> I personally think that zevla should be prohibited from matching except
> for final vowel clusters (after either the final consonant or the final
I go beyond this. I demand a vowel-blocking rule for all fu'ivla to which
this vowel-dropping feature applies. Otherwise we would have to introduce
an assigned rafsi system for fu'ivla similar to three-letter rafsi, which
in me induces nausea, or there would be certain grammatical ambiguity in
any cases where the only distinguishable facet of a vowel-dropping fu'ivla
is the final vowel. Has this really not been addressed by the LFK? I
honestly cannot even find a resource that discusses this, other than the
code you provided, which goes beyond my paygrade.
At the very least this rule should be made readily accessible on the
lojban website for nintadni and a decision needs to be reached about the
final vowel rule, namely whether to create a blocking rule or disallow
vowel dropping. I see that xorlo is featured further down on the home
page. This rule is comparably important if we don't want users to be
confused when they come across rafsi fu'ivla in the wild.