official cmavo form

[guskant]

coi ro me byfy

peg morphology allows cmavo beginning with "consonant glide":

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+PEG+Morphology+Algorithm
cmavo-form <- !h !cluster onset (nucleus h)* (!stressed nucleus / nucleus !cluster) / y+ / digit
onset <-  h / consonant? glide / initial

while CLL3.4 disallows it:
"the ten following ones [diphtongs with on-glide, i.e. beginning with i or u] are used only as stand-alone words and in Lojbanized names and borrowings."

Which is official now? La jbovlaste allows it based on peg morphology, and la gleki and I don't agree to the new rule. Concretely, an experimental cmavo "jie'e'e" is now discussed:
http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/comments.html?valsi=27527;natlangword=0;commentid=0;definition=0

If this new rule is official, CLL3.4 must be modified.

mi'e la guskant mu'o

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 9:19 PM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:

coi ro me byfy

peg morphology allows cmavo beginning with "consonant glide":

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+PEG+Morphology+Algorithm
cmavo-form <- !h !cluster onset (nucleus h)* (!stressed nucleus / nucleus !cluster) / y+ / digit
onset <-  h / consonant? glide / initial

while CLL3.4 disallows it:
"the ten following ones [diphtongs with on-glide, i.e. beginning with i or u] are used only as stand-alone words and in Lojbanized names and borrowings."

It's not very clear that it disallows them, it just says that they are not used. I don't think for example that the form "ie'a" should be disallowed as a cmavo form, even though it uses "ie" not as a stand-alone word.  I wouldn't mind disallowing "consonant glide" in cmavo if they were also disallowed in zi'evla. If they were disallowed in cmavo but not in zi'evla, would that make "jiebroda" a valid zi'evla?

 

Which is official now?

CLL, even though it leaves some points of the morphology unclear.

 

La jbovlaste allows it based on peg morphology, and la gleki and I don't agree to the new rule. Concretely, an experimental cmavo "jie'e'e" is now discussed:
http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/comments.html?valsi=27527;natlangword=0;commentid=0;definition=0
 
If this new rule is official, CLL3.4 must be modified.

The PEG morphology is not yet official. I would have been happy to disallow "consonant glide" as a valid onset altogether, but other people were opposed to that at the time. Some would have even allowed "CC glide" as a syllable onset, so allowing a single consonant was something of a compromise. I would be happy to go with the more strict "onset <-  h / glide / initial" if that's the new consensus, although in that case there are probably several words in jbovlaste that would have to be revised.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[mukti]

On Sunday, October 19, 2014 9:19:33 PM UTC-3, guskant wrote:

La jbovlaste allows it based on peg morphology, and la gleki and I don't agree to the new rule. Concretely, an experimental cmavo "jie'e'e" is now discussed:
http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/comments.html?valsi=27527;natlangword=0;commentid=0;definition=0

A note to clarify why, when and how jbovlaste came to use the camxes BPFK morphology.

In March a bug was filed against jbovlaste, citing problems with words that were being rejected on the basis of not being approved by "vlatai" -- a tool which is part of "jbofihe", and which jbovlaste previously used to validate words. Since jbofihe/vlatai was not maintained, in April I posted a message to the lojban list proposing to replace it with camxes, and asking for feedback. I ran all of the words in the database through camxes, and only a small number of cmevla and fu'ivla were classified differently by camxes than they had been by jbofihe/vlatai. I published a list of those words for confirmation.

In June I posted a follow-up, announcing that jbovlaste had been updated to use a python implementation of camxes, and detailing the attendant reclassifications: Out of 21,940 words, only about 100 were affected by the change in the morphological verifier. Most of the effected words were non-conforming fu'ivla.

All of the implementations of the implementations of camxes distributed at that time, including the the one added to jbovlaste, were using an older version of the camxes BPFK morphology: Probably version 108, from November 2005. The most recent version of the morphology had been completed in June 2008. 

The fact that an older morphology was being used came up in discussions of {relmast}, which had been permitted by jbofihe/vlatai, but was forbidden by camxes. After it became apparent that camxes was not using the latest BPFK morphology, I updated camxes/vlatai to do so. 20 cmevla that were previously disallowed were reinstated.

Since that time, the various implementations of camxes have been updated to use the 2008 camxes BPFK morphology, including Ilmen's camxes.js implementation, which powers the camxes bot in IRC, and python-camxes, which is actually a wrapper around Robin's original Java implementation, and which is used by camxes.lojban.org.

mi'e la mukti mu'o

[Gleki Arxokuna]

I suggest disallowing at least /^C[iu]V$/ cmavo like {kia} for some time until we stabilize the language on the new level which for the most part is 

1. a new printed CLL with errata applied

2. a printed dictionary of cmavo, upper ontology + most useful in real life words. The last two would probably consist mostly of gismu.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[John Cowan]

Gleki Arxokuna scripsit:

> I suggest disallowing at least /^C[iu]V$/ cmavo like {kia} for some time

I suggest disallowing them forever.

--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org
Historians aren't constantly confronted with people who carry on
self-confidently about the rule against adultery in the sixth amendment to
the Declamation of Independence, as written by Benjamin Hamilton. Computer
scientists aren't always having to correct people who make bold assertions
about the value of Objectivist Programming, as examplified in the HCNL
entities stored in Relaxational Databases. --Mark Liberman

[guskant]

Le lundi 20 octobre 2014 15:50:23 UTC+9, John Cowan a écrit :

Gleki Arxokuna scripsit:

> I suggest disallowing at least /^C[iu]V$/ cmavo like {kia} for some time

I suggest disallowing them forever.

I agree.

I should point out that a fu'ivla creator should think of "jiebroda test" for fu'ivla morphology if "consonant glide" is allowed for cmavo. If both cmavo and fu'ivla may include "consonant glide", "jiebroda" is not a fu'ivla (or zi'evla) but two words "jie broda". In order to make it fu'ivla form, we should modify it, for example, to "djiebroda" or "ji'ezbroda".

Actually, vlatai of jbofi'e says "jie" is not a lojban word, "jiebroda", "djiebroda" and "ji'ezbroda" are fu'ivla (stage-4), while camxes says "jie" is cmavo, "jiebroda" is two words, "djiebroda" is not a lojban word, and "ji'ezbroda" is fu'ivla.

Whether cmavo with "consonant glide" is allowed or not is very important for defining Lojban phonology. I, who have been believed that "consonant glide" is basically a kind of non-lojban sound, I have not been much careful in listening and speaking "je". If "jie" is allowed as cmavo, I should change my attitude, and be careful whether the pronunciation is "je" or "jie". Please, BPFK-members, make clear the decision on this matter.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Actually I just don't want them because in future I want to be able to pronounce {tu'a} as {tua}.

[Alex Burka]

I like {tu'a} just how it is of course, but I would agree with disabling C[iu]V. I agree with guskant that it's too similar to CV.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-10-20 12:01 GMT+04:00 Alex Burka <dur...@gmail.com>:

I like {tu'a} just how it is of course, but I would agree with disabling C[iu]V. I agree with guskant that it's too similar to CV.

I didn't say I wanted {tu'a} forbidden. I just want a new alternative accent for a limited number of dipthongs

[selpa'i]

la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e

> The PEG morphology is not yet official. I would have been happy to
> disallow "consonant glide" as a valid onset altogether, but other people
> were opposed to that at the time. Some would have even allowed "CC
> glide" as a syllable onset, so allowing a single consonant was something
> of a compromise. I would be happy to go with the more strict "onset <-
> h / glide / initial" if that's the new consensus, although in that case
> there are probably several words in jbovlaste that would have to be revised.

My personal position is that I definitely would want to disallow any CiV
where C is a sibilant (e.g. ?{sia}) or a dental (e.g. ?{tia}) [1],
because they tend to degenerate into simpler forms over time (e.g. {ca}
and {tca} respectively) and are hard to distiniguish for many people. I
would ban them in any word, not just in cmavo.

Regarding forms like {kia} (which must be pronounced [kja]), they bother
me slightly less, but I wouldn't miss them if they got removed.

So one could either ban just the ones that are likely to cause problems,
or ban all for simplicity's sake.

I see no problems with {ie'o} as a cmavo form.

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o

--
[1] The are some additional phonotactic constraints I would install, but
the details seem irrelevant here.

[And Rosta]

selpa'i, On 20/10/2014 13:23:

> la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e
>> The PEG morphology is not yet official. I would have been happy to
>> disallow "consonant glide" as a valid onset altogether, but other people
>> were opposed to that at the time. Some would have even allowed "CC
>> glide" as a syllable onset, so allowing a single consonant was something
>> of a compromise. I would be happy to go with the more strict "onset <-
>> h / glide / initial" if that's the new consensus, although in that case
>> there are probably several words in jbovlaste that would have to be revised.
>
> My personal position is that I definitely would want to disallow any CiV where C is a sibilant (e.g. ?{sia}) or a dental (e.g. ?{tia}) [1], because they tend to degenerate into simpler forms over time (e.g. {ca} and {tca} respectively) and are hard to distiniguish for many people. I would ban them in any word, not just in cmavo.
>
> Regarding forms like {kia} (which must be pronounced [kja]), they bother me slightly less, but I wouldn't miss them if they got removed.

Why must Lojban have onsets and syllabification? /Cia/ is problematic only if /Ci-/ must constitute an onset.

> So one could either ban just the ones that are likely to cause
> problems, or ban all for simplicity's sake.

I'd ban none.

> I see no problems with {ie'o} as a cmavo form.

How about {a'ua}?

> [1] The are some additional phonotactic constraints I would install, but the details seem irrelevant here.

I think Lojban already has way more phonotactic constraints than is necessary...

--And.

[John Cowan]

selpa'i scripsit:

> My personal position is that I definitely would want to disallow any
> CiV where C is a sibilant (e.g. ?{sia}) or a dental (e.g. ?{tia})
> [1], because they tend to degenerate into simpler forms over time
> (e.g. {ca} and {tca} respectively) and are hard to distiniguish for
> many people. I would ban them in any word, not just in cmavo.

That is exactly why Lojban Central banned them by construction back in
1988 (they existed and still exist in Loglan).

--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org

Nobody expects the RESTifarian Inquisition! Our chief weapon is
surprise ... surprise and tedium ... tedium and surprise ....
Our two weapons are tedium and surprise ... and ruthless disregard
for unpleasant facts.... Our three weapons are tedium, surprise, and
ruthless disregard ... and an almost fanatical devotion to Roy Fielding....

[John Cowan]

And Rosta scripsit:

> Why must Lojban have onsets and syllabification? /Cia/ is problematic
> only if /Ci-/ must constitute an onset.

It's settled that "ia" is /ja/.

> >I see no problems with {ie'o} as a cmavo form.

I agree.

> How about {a'ua}?

By avoiding things like this, we keep Lojban /h/ safely ambisyllabic.
Allowing /ahwa/ means we have to choose between coda /h/ (hard for
anglophones and many others) and onset /hw/ (hard for most anglophones,
who no longer have a /w/ ~ /W/ distinction).

We have no shortage of possible cmavo. Let's not go toward hC or Ch
clusters (where C = any consonant including /j/ and /w/).

> I think Lojban already has way more phonotactic constraints than is
> necessary...

I wish we had more, but our lujvo-making machinery prevents some that
would be really useful, like not allowing both "denbro" and "dembro".

--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org

What asininity could I have uttered that they applaud me thus?
--Phocion, Greek orator

[And Rosta]

John Cowan, On 20/10/2014 15:13:

> And Rosta scripsit:
>
>> Why must Lojban have onsets and syllabification? /Cia/ is problematic
>> only if /Ci-/ must constitute an onset.
>
> It's settled that "ia" is /ja/.

Does /j/ (corresponding to orthographic <i> rather than <j>) actually exist? Are minimal pairs possible with /i/:/j/?

I'd propose that "ia" should be /ia/.

>> How about {a'ua}?
>
> By avoiding things like this, we keep Lojban /h/ safely ambisyllabic.
> Allowing /ahwa/ means we have to choose between coda /h/ (hard for
> anglophones and many others) and onset /hw/ (hard for most anglophones,
> who no longer have a /w/ ~ /W/ distinction).

These problems arise when {a'ua} is analysed as something other than /a'ua/. If Lojban has no /u/:/w/ contrast -- as the impossibility of minimal pairs would show -- then /ahwa/ and /awha/ are not possible analyses. I think syllabification is likely an unnecessary complication, but I don't see why /'/ in /a'ua/ couldn't be ambisyllabic.

> We have no shortage of possible cmavo. Let's not go toward hC or Ch
> clusters (where C = any consonant including /j/ and /w/).

The simplest phonological analysis of Lojban is one in which there are no clusters at all. The only phonotactic rules necessary are that a C many be adjacent only to a V, a V may be adjacent only to a C or a glide V of a type other than its own, and /%/ (or however we symbolize the buffer vowel) may be adjacent only to a C.

I realize the current rules are much more complex. I'm just noting that with no detriment they could be simplified to what I've set out. (I would actually advocate slightly more restrictions on VV sequences, tho.)

>> I think Lojban already has way more phonotactic constraints than is
>> necessary...
>
> I wish we had more, but our lujvo-making machinery prevents some that
> would be really useful, like not allowing both "denbro" and "dembro".

Those are problematic only when there has been excessive syncope of /%/.

--And.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-10-20 18:13 GMT+04:00 John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org>:

And Rosta scripsit:

> Why must Lojban have onsets and syllabification? /Cia/ is problematic
> only if /Ci-/ must constitute an onset.

It's settled that "ia" is /ja/.

> >I see no problems with {ie'o} as a cmavo form.

I agree.

> How about {a'ua}?

By avoiding things like this, we keep Lojban /h/ safely ambisyllabic.
Allowing /ahwa/ means we have to choose between coda /h/ (hard for
anglophones and many others) and onset /hw/ (hard for most anglophones,
who no longer have a /w/ ~ /W/ distinction).

We have no shortage of possible cmavo.  Let's not go toward hC or Ch
clusters (where C = any consonant including /j/ and /w/).

wut? no way, {'} is a vowel separator.

If you want new phonemes so much add click sounds, add [D] and [G].

> I think Lojban already has way more phonotactic constraints than is
> necessary...

I wish we had more, but our lujvo-making machinery prevents some that
would be really useful, like not allowing both "denbro" and "dembro".

--
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        co...@ccil.org
What asininity could I have uttered that they applaud me thus?
        --Phocion, Greek orator

[John Cowan]

And Rosta scripsit:

> >It's settled that "ia" is /ja/.
>
> Does /j/ (corresponding to orthographic <i> rather than <j>) actually
> exist? Are minimal pairs possible with /i/:/j/?

I should have written [ja]. And no, there is no separate /j/ phoneme,
and I hope there will be none. An alternate analysis is possible by
which there is /j/ and /w/ but not /h/; that is, "kai" is /kaj/ and
"ka'i" is /kai/ with epenthetic [h]. But I see no particular merit in
this analysis.

> These problems arise when {a'ua} is analysed as something other than
> /a'ua/. If Lojban has no /u/:/w/ contrast -- as the impossibility of
> minimal pairs would show -- then /ahwa/ and /awha/ are not possible
> analyses. I think syllabification is likely an unnecessary complication,
> but I don't see why /'/ in /a'ua/ couldn't be ambisyllabic.

Again I should have written [ahwa] with square brackets. My concern
is that this form would decay to [aWa] and then be merged with [awa].

> The simplest phonological analysis of Lojban is one in which there are
> no clusters at all. The only phonotactic rules necessary are that a
> C many be adjacent only to a V, a V may be adjacent only to a C or a
> glide V of a type other than its own, and /%/ (or however we symbolize
> the buffer vowel) may be adjacent only to a C.

That would still exclude "a'ua", because there is no valid place to insert a %.

--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org

You let them out again, Old Man Willow!
What you be a-thinking of? You should not be waking!
Eat earth! Dig deep! Drink water! Go to sleep!
Bombadil is talking.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:02 AM, And Rosta <and....@gmail.com> wrote:

Why must Lojban have onsets and syllabification? /Cia/ is problematic only if /Ci-/ must constitute an onset.

There's no special need to realize /Cia/ as one syllable, but it must be counted as one syllable for penultimate stress rule purposes. Formulating the rule without mentioning syllables would be more complicated. It also has to be distinguished from "ciia"

I see no problems with {ie'o} as a cmavo form.

How about {a'ua}?

"a'ua" is currently not allowed by camxes, but "a'uua" is (it's two words)

[Jorge Llambías]

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 4:05 AM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Whether cmavo with "consonant glide" is allowed or not is very important for defining Lojban phonology. I, who have been believed that "consonant glide" is basically a kind of non-lojban sound, I have not been much careful in listening and speaking "je". If "jie" is allowed as cmavo, I should change my attitude, and be careful whether the pronunciation is "je" or "jie". Please, BPFK-members, make clear the decision on this matter.

The question shouldn't be about cmavo. If CiV/CuV are disallowed it should be for all words, since distinguishing prije from prijie is as hard or as easy as distinguishing je from jie. I currently find only three experimental cmavo in jbovlaste containing CiV/CuV, but there are lots of fu'ivla, so the proposal to disallow them should contemplate what is to be done with all those fu'ivla (change them to something else? leave them in as archaic words?) It would also be useful to know of how many words we are talking about.

[And Rosta]

On 20 Oct 2014 22:43, "Jorge Llambías" <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:02 AM, And Rosta <and....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Why must Lojban have onsets and syllabification? /Cia/ is problematic only if /Ci-/ must constitute an onset.
>
>
> There's no special need to realize /Cia/ as one syllable, but it must be counted as one syllable for penultimate stress rule purposes.

How come? Is it simply that because word-segmentation is sensitive to stress, and stress is sensitive to syllabicity, varisyllabicity risks undermining the consistency of the word-segmentation rules? If so, the stress or word-segmentation rules can be reformulated so that VV counts as a single metrical unit rather than a sequence of two.

> Formulating the rule without mentioning syllables would be more complicated.

It's not yet clear to me that that is so, but that could be because I don't know the rule.

> It also has to be distinguished from "ciia"

How come? Is "ciia" licit? Is it licit even if "cia" isn't?

>
>>> I see no problems with {ie'o} as a cmavo form.
>>
>>
>> How about {a'ua}?
>
>
> "a'ua" is currently not allowed by camxes, but "a'uua" is (it's two words)

Ah. So the two-word version needn't be "a'u.ua"? I had been thinking that all words must begin with a consonant.

I would allow "a'ua" (assuming I was not allowed to kill /'/), disallow "uu", and have all words begin with a consonant, but if "a'uua" must be a variant of "a'u.ua" then I see why "a'ua" must be forbidden.

--And.

[And Rosta]

On 20 Oct 2014 20:42, "John Cowan" <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
>
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > >It's settled that "ia" is /ja/.
> >
> > Does /j/ (corresponding to orthographic <i> rather than <j>) actually
> > exist? Are minimal pairs possible with /i/:/j/?
>
> I should have written [ja]. 

But must Lojban so specify the duration of the /i/ in /ia/? That seems unnecessarily pernickety, given the quite proper laxity of all other realization rules in Lojban. If, rather, what is settled is that /i/ in /ia/ is an onset, then I am asking why that must be so.

> And no, there is no separate /j/ phoneme,
> and I hope there will be none.  An alternate analysis is possible by
> which there is /j/ and /w/ but not /h/; that is, "kai" is /kaj/ and
> "ka'i" is /kai/ with epenthetic [h].  But I see no particular merit in
> this analysis.

A merit would be getting rid of /'/ as a phoneme -- a good outcome given its anomalousness (not counting as a consonant for morphological purposes). The illicitness of /w%w/ could be accounted for by a rule that /%/ can't be adjacent to a vowel and that /w/ is both a consonant and a vowel.

>
> > These problems arise when {a'ua} is analysed as something other than
> > /a'ua/. If Lojban has no /u/:/w/ contrast -- as the impossibility of
> > minimal pairs would show -- then /ahwa/ and /awha/ are not possible
> > analyses. I think syllabification is likely an unnecessary complication,
> > but I don't see why /'/ in /a'ua/ couldn't be ambisyllabic.
>
> Again I should have written [ahwa] with square brackets.  My concern
> is that this form would decay to [aWa] and then be merged with [awa].

But the contrast-preserving Lojbanist should instead say [ahua], or, more realistically, [aWua] or [axua]. Actually, the contrast-preserving Lojbanist should of course say [aTua], since it is well-established that [h] is not a reliably contrastive realization of /'/.

>
> > The simplest phonological analysis of Lojban is one in which there are
> > no clusters at all. The only phonotactic rules necessary are that a
> > C many be adjacent only to a V, a V may be adjacent only to a C or a
> > glide V of a type other than its own, and /%/ (or however we symbolize
> > the buffer vowel) may be adjacent only to a C.
>
> That would still exclude "a'ua", because there is no valid place to insert a %.

I was assuming that under these phonological rules, /'/ would be a (morphologically irregular) consonant and /u/ a vowel, with nothing counting as both vowel and consonant.

--And.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:32 PM, And Rosta <and....@gmail.com> wrote:

On 20 Oct 2014 22:43, "Jorge Llambías" <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There's no special need to realize /Cia/ as one syllable, but it must be counted as one syllable for penultimate stress rule purposes.

How come? Is it simply that because word-segmentation is sensitive to stress, and stress is sensitive to syllabicity, varisyllabicity risks undermining the consistency of the word-segmentation rules? If so, the stress or word-segmentation rules can be reformulated so that VV counts as a single metrical unit rather than a sequence of two.

Yes. 

> Formulating the rule without mentioning syllables would be more complicated.

It's not yet clear to me that that is so, but that could be because I don't know the rule.

Maybe not terribly more complicated, but at least somewhat more complicated. y-syllables are already exceptions to penultimate stress, as are consonantal syllables and buffer-vowel syllables, so this would be just one more exception.

 

> It also has to be distinguished from "ciia"

How come? Is "ciia" licit? Is it licit even if "cia" isn't?

Yes, there's no constraint against vowel i being followed by glide i.

> "a'ua" is currently not allowed by camxes, but "a'uua" is (it's two words)

Ah. So the two-word version needn't be "a'u.ua"? I had been thinking that all words must begin with a consonant.

Since it causes no ambiguity, camxes doesn't force a glottal stop/pause before a word that begins with a glide. But this need not happen at a word boundary: "braka'uua" is a valid fu'ivla.

 

I would allow "a'ua" (assuming I was not allowed to kill /'/), disallow "uu", and have all words begin with a consonant, but if "a'uua" must be a variant of "a'u.ua" then I see why "a'ua" must be forbidden.

Yes, it should be one or the other, but not both.

[John Cowan]

And Rosta scripsit:

> Ah. So the two-word version needn't be "a'u.ua"? I had been thinking that
> all words must begin with a consonant.

Normatively they must, but the concern is that such glottal stops will
be unstable, since they are not (in the absence of "a'ua"-style words)
necessary for word separation. In any case, I was talking about "a ua"
[a?wa] as hard to distinguish from "a'ua" [ahwa], both tending to become
simple [awa].

--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org

When I wrote it I was more than a little febrile with foodpoisoning
from an antique carrot that I foolishly ate out of an illjudged faith
in the benignancy of vegetables. --And Rosta

[John Cowan]

And Rosta scripsit:

> But must Lojban so specify the duration of the /i/ in /ia/? That seems
> unnecessarily pernickety, given the quite proper laxity of all other
> realization rules in Lojban. If, rather, what is settled is that /i/ in
> /ia/ is an onset, then I am asking why that must be so.

Historically, I think it rose out of the introduction of ' to simplify the
Loglan pronunciation rules. In Loglan there is no ', and therefore only
25 VV sequences rather than Lojban's 29 (ignoring "y" in both languages).
These 25 break into four groups according to pronunciation:

ai ei oi ao are always falling diphthongs (in practice, ao is pronounced
[aw] like Lojban au).

ae au ea eo eu oa oe ou are always two syllables; when e is the first,
it is allophonically [e] rather than [E].

aa ee oo are always two syllables *and* one of the syllables is required
to bear the stress (so words like "baarsoa" are invalid, unlike the
Lojban analogue "ba'ars'oa"); ee oo are very rare.

iV and uV may be pronounced either as rising diphthongs, as in Lojban, or
as two syllables: therefore "stomia" may be either ['stomja] or [sto'mia].

> But the contrast-preserving Lojbanist should instead say [ahua],

Easily confused with "a'u ua" [ahu?wa] > [ahuwa].

> or, more realistically, [aWua] or [axua].

The latter is "a xua"; [x] cannot be used as an allophonic fortition of [h].

--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org

Not to perambulate the corridors during the hours of repose
in the boots of ascension. --Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel

[And Rosta]

John Cowan, On 21/10/2014 01:03:

> And Rosta scripsit:
>
>> Ah. So the two-word version needn't be "a'u.ua"? I had been thinking that
>> all words must begin with a consonant.
>
> Normatively they must, but the concern is that such glottal stops will
> be unstable, since they are not (in the absence of "a'ua"-style words)
> necessary for word separation.

Is the concern that because /./ is elidable when its presence is not morphologically contrastive, the risk is that through habit it would end up being elided even when it is? There are various solutions to that. One, as with Dotside, is to not elide it at all. Another is to elide it willynilly, and worry about distinguishing the unelided and elided versions only when the addressee might misunderstand; though, a problem with that is that it is hard to carefully and deliberately show that one is using a properly /./-less form.

> In any case, I was talking about "a ua" [a?wa] as hard to distinguish
> from "a'ua" [ahwa], both tending to become simple [awa].

Specifically for L1 English speakers, you must mean, rather than for people in general. Does it really make sense to base the rules of Lojban on the specific needs of L1 English speakers?

Many L1 English speakers would tend to hear /a.ua/ as /at ua/.

If /'/ is to be kept distinct from /x/, /'/ must be [T], giving [aTua] for /a'ua/, which is unlikely to become [awa].

>> or, more realistically, [aWua] or [axua].
>
> The latter is "a xua"; [x] cannot be used as an allophonic fortition of [h].

It would be an assimilation rather than a fortition. As I've said before, [h] is articulatorily impossible as a realization of /'/ in some environments, e.g. /i'i/, at ordinary speech rates, and the /'/:/x/ is not robustly sustainable. Under the current rules, /./ must be [T] (contrastive voiceless continuant). OTOH, usage has, I think, hitherto enshrined a posterior voiceless fricative as the realization of /'/, so overlapping with /x/. With rule changes, /'/ could be /G/, or got rid of entirely, which would be my preference, tho it would eliminate Lojban's most distinctive (if egregiously noisome) feature; to eliminate it would -- for many -- be like a well-loved friend having cosmetic rhinoplasty -- they might emerge more beautiful, but not with the face one has loved so dearly.

John Cowan, On 21/10/2014 01:26:> And Rosta scripsit:

>
>> But must Lojban so specify the duration of the /i/ in /ia/? That seems
>> unnecessarily pernickety, given the quite proper laxity of all other
>> realization rules in Lojban. If, rather, what is settled is that /i/ in
>> /ia/ is an onset, then I am asking why that must be so.
>
> Historically, I think it rose out of the introduction of ' to simplify the
> Loglan pronunciation rules.
>
> In Loglan there is no ', and therefore only
> 25 VV sequences rather than Lojban's 29 (ignoring "y" in both languages).
> These 25 break into four groups according to pronunciation:
>
> ai ei oi ao are always falling diphthongs (in practice, ao is pronounced
> [aw] like Lojban au).
>
> ae au ea eo eu oa oe ou are always two syllables; when e is the first,
> it is allophonically [e] rather than [E].
>
> aa ee oo are always two syllables *and* one of the syllables is required
> to bear the stress (so words like "baarsoa" are invalid, unlike the
> Lojban analogue "ba'ars'oa"); ee oo are very rare.
>
> iV and uV may be pronounced either as rising diphthongs, as in Lojban, or
> as two syllables: therefore "stomia" may be either ['stomja] or [sto'mia].

The Loglan treatment of /ia/ is clearly better (because it doesn't require rules of syllabification). /ii, uu/ are problematic either way, and should be forbidden. The Loglan way is problematic if it must contrast /ia/ and /iia/.

Obviously it was the glideless /ae, ea, aa/ type that led to Lojban's "'". That in itself was not so bad a move, tho the choice of realization was, but making it contrastive with zero between other vowels gives greater headaches. I'd have just forbidden them altogether; going all Livagian on their ass, I'd allow i to be followed by any vowel but i, u to be followed by any vowel but u, e to be followed by no vowel but i, o to be followed by no vowel but u, and a to be followed by no vowel but i and u.

--And.

[And Rosta]

Jorge Llambías, On 21/10/2014 00:56:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:32 PM, And Rosta <and....@gmail.com <mailto:and....@gmail.com>> wrote:

>
> On 20 Oct 2014 22:43, "Jorge Llambías" <jjlla...@gmail.com <mailto:jjlla...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > There's no special need to realize /Cia/ as one syllable, but it must be counted as one syllable for penultimate stress rule purposes.
>
> How come? Is it simply that because word-segmentation is sensitive to stress, and stress is sensitive to syllabicity, varisyllabicity risks undermining the consistency of the word-segmentation rules? If so, the stress or word-segmentation rules can be reformulated so that VV counts as a single metrical unit rather than a sequence of two.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Formulating the rule without mentioning syllables would be more complicated.
>
> It's not yet clear to me that that is so, but that could be because I don't know the rule.
>
>
> Maybe not terribly more complicated, but at least somewhat more complicated. y-syllables are already exceptions to penultimate stress, as are consonantal syllables and buffer-vowel syllables, so this would be just one more exception.

It sounds like there are all these exceptions because the rule is wrongly formulated. If syllables are discarded and the metrical units are instead AEIOU clusters, might the rule become exceptionless?

>
> > It also has to be distinguished from "ciia"
>
> How come? Is "ciia" licit? Is it licit even if "cia" isn't?
>
> Yes, there's no constraint against vowel i being followed by glide i.

I would forbid /ii, uu/, but if you were set on allowing them, then things could be kept in order by a rule that requires every phonological string to be parsable as a CV sequence, which would rule out /cia/.

> I would allow "a'ua" (assuming I was not allowed to kill /'/), disallow "uu", and have all words begin with a consonant, but if "a'uua" must be a variant of "a'u.ua <http://u.ua>" then I see why "a'ua" must be forbidden.

>
> Yes, it should be one or the other, but not both.

And then <a'ua> could be an orthographic variant of <a'uua>, <cia> of <ciia>.

--And.

[John Cowan]

And Rosta scripsit:

> Is the concern that because /./ is elidable when its presence is not
> morphologically contrastive, the risk is that through habit it would
> end up being elided even when it is?

Just so.

> a problem with that is that it is hard to carefully and deliberately
> show that one is using a properly /./-less form.

Indeed.

> >In any case, I was talking about "a ua" [a?wa] as hard to distinguish
> >from "a'ua" [ahwa], both tending to become simple [awa].
>
> Specifically for L1 English speakers, you must mean, rather than for
> people in general. Does it really make sense to base the rules of
> Lojban on the specific needs of L1 English speakers?

Both [W] and the cluster [hw] are rare in the world's languages compared
with [w], so it's not too surprising that most varieties of English have
lost them. ("Sir, it is not so much to be lamented that Old England is
lost, as that the Scots have found it." --Sam: Johnson)

> Many L1 English speakers would tend to hear /a.ua/ as /at ua/.

Lojban /t/ is problematic for anglophones in general, given the North
American (i.e majority) tendency to voice it between vowels and to
glottalize it between a vowel and a syllabic consonant. What is worse,
all anglophones tend to hear [t] (as opposed to [t_h]) as /d/. I don't
think we can do anything about this.

> If /'/ is to be kept distinct from /x/, /'/ must be [T], giving [aTua]
> for /a'ua/, which is unlikely to become [awa].

I'm not sure if this is meant to be an anglophone or a universal claim.
Anglophones tend to render [x] as [k], as in _loch, bach, Bach_, and
Germans have no problem distinguishing /h/ and /x/ systematically,
though it's arguable that there are no [h] : [x] minimal pairs, as [h]
is only in onsets whereas /x/ in onsets is realized (in the standard
accent, at least) as /C/.

> It would be an assimilation rather than a fortition. As I've said
> before, [h] is articulatorily impossible as a realization of /'/
> in some environments, e.g. /i'i/, at ordinary speech rates,

I articulate /i'i/ as [iCi], /u'u/ as [uWu], /ii/ as /j\i/ (with a voiced
palatal fricative like Spanish-Spanish "y"), and /uu/ as [wu].

> Obviously it was the glideless /ae, ea, aa/ type that led to Lojban's
> "'". That in itself was not so bad a move, tho the choice of realization
> was, but making it contrastive with zero between other vowels gives
> greater headaches. I'd have just forbidden them altogether; going all
> Livagian on their ass, I'd allow i to be followed by any vowel but i,
> u to be followed by any vowel but u, e to be followed by no vowel but i,
> o to be followed by no vowel but u, and a to be followed by no vowel
> but i and u.

This would, of course, involve a complete discarding of the cmavo list and
starting over.

--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org

Linguistics is arguably the most hotly contested property in the academic
realm. It is soaked with the blood of poets, theologians, philosophers,
philologists, psychologists, biologists and neurologists, along with
whatever blood can be got out of grammarians. - Russ Rymer

[John Cowan]

And Rosta scripsit:

> It sounds like there are all these exceptions because the rule is
> wrongly formulated. If syllables are discarded and the metrical units
> are instead AEIOU clusters, might the rule become exceptionless?

It would get worse: we would have to have an exception for words like /stabaa/
explaining why it is /sta'baa/ rather than /'stabaa/.

--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org

"The exception proves the rule." Dimbulbs think: "Your counterexample proves
my theory." Latin students think "'Probat' means 'tests': the exception puts
the rule to the proof." But legal historians know it means "Evidence for an
exception is evidence of the existence of a rule in cases not excepted from."

[Alex Burka]

To make this more concrete, I went and did the search. Using an XML dump from yesterday, there are 342 valsi in jbovlaste (2 zei-lujvo, 2 experimental cmavo, 28 cmevla, 310 fu'ivla) that contain C[iu]V. If I restrict C to sibilants [jczs], there are only 52 (1 experimental cmavo, 4 cmevla, 47 fu'ivla).

mu'o mi'e la durka

[Alex Burka]

Side note: half of those fu'ivla (156 out of 310) have one or more of kingdom/phylum/class/order/family/genus/species in their definitions, suggesting they are transliterated from Latin (I have not looked at the full list of words). So those may be fixable by simply changing CiV to CiiV, etc.

mu'o mi'e la durka

[Jorge Llambías]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 6:06 AM, And Rosta <and....@gmail.com> wrote:

I would forbid /ii, uu/, but if you were set on allowing them, then things could be kept in order by a rule that requires every phonological string to be parsable as a CV sequence, which would rule out /cia/.

It would have been better to not allow them from the start, disallowing them now would be a lot of work. 

We could still salvage both the CV rule and /cia/ if the buffer vowel is allowed between consonant and glide. 

 

And then <a'ua> could be an orthographic variant of <a'uua>, <cia> of <ciia>.

I doubt the isomorphicists would be very happy with two words written together like that. It would also be somewhat inconsistent that we can't write ".iia" as ".ia", unless ".ia" must be interpreted as ".iia" and "ia" can't be written with a dot in front. But then that would interfere with dotside and names like ".iakob."...

[And Rosta]

John Cowan, On 21/10/2014 19:11:

> And Rosta scripsit:
>
>> It sounds like there are all these exceptions because the rule is
>> wrongly formulated. If syllables are discarded and the metrical units
>> are instead AEIOU clusters, might the rule become exceptionless?
>
> It would get worse: we would have to have an exception for words like /stabaa/
> explaining why it is /sta'baa/ rather than /'stabaa/.

Is /stabaa/ an alternative notation or analysis for /staba'a/? If not, what is it? If it is, then we just need a suitable definition of AEIOU cluster: either we say that /'/ is phonologically visible, in which case it can't be cluster-internal (since it is not an AEIOU), or we take 'AEIOU cluster' as a primitive rather than derived term, and have a rule of apostrophe-insertion between phonologically distinct but contiguous AEIOU clusters.

>> Obviously it was the glideless /ae, ea, aa/ type that led to Lojban's
>> "'". That in itself was not so bad a move, tho the choice of realization
>> was, but making it contrastive with zero between other vowels gives
>> greater headaches. I'd have just forbidden them altogether; going all
>> Livagian on their ass, I'd allow i to be followed by any vowel but i,
>> u to be followed by any vowel but u, e to be followed by no vowel but i,
>> o to be followed by no vowel but u, and a to be followed by no vowel
>> but i and u.
>
> This would, of course, involve a complete discarding of the cmavo list and
> starting over.

A certain revision, rather than a complete discarding. You could convert to new forms by rule, /e'V/ to /eiV/, /o'V/ to /ouV/, /i'V/ to /iV/, /u'V/ to /uV/, some other rule for /a'V/, and sort out the newly created homophones, perhaps by making use of a /aiV/:/auV/ contrast.

But to be more realistic and hence more conservative, my reading of what xorxes said camxes does, namely make every string analysable as a sequence of CVs, sounds like the best rule.

John Cowan, On 21/10/2014 19:08:> And Rosta scripsit:

>
>> Is the concern that because /./ is elidable when its presence is not
>> morphologically contrastive, the risk is that through habit it would
>> end up being elided even when it is?
>
> Just so.
>
>> a problem with that is that it is hard to carefully and deliberately
>> show that one is using a properly /./-less form.
>
> Indeed.

This is a wider problem with /./, isn't it. A solution would be to make glottal-stop elision illicit.

>>> In any case, I was talking about "a ua" [a?wa] as hard to distinguish
>> >from "a'ua" [ahwa], both tending to become simple [awa].
>>
>> Specifically for L1 English speakers, you must mean, rather than for
>> people in general. Does it really make sense to base the rules of
>> Lojban on the specific needs of L1 English speakers?
>
> Both [W] and the cluster [hw] are rare in the world's languages compared
> with [w], so it's not too surprising that most varieties of English have
> lost them.

I think [hw] is virtually inarticulable. I don't know if anybody knows the frequency of [W] or any other phone in the world's languages. The fact that it's rare as the primary allophone of a phoneme doesn't mean it's rare as a phone. (E.g. bilabial trills are rare as primary allophone of a phoneme in world's languages, but the phone is still to be heard in English words for quite a few speakers.)

But anyway, rather than [aWa] tending to become [awa] and hence neutralized with /aua/, it could instead become the far more innocuous [aWua].

>> Many L1 English speakers would tend to hear /a.ua/ as /at ua/.
>
> Lojban /t/ is problematic for anglophones in general, given the North
> American (i.e majority) tendency to voice it between vowels and to
> glottalize it between a vowel and a syllabic consonant. What is worse,
> all anglophones tend to hear [t] (as opposed to [t_h]) as /d/.

(Most but not all.)

> I don't think we can do anything about this.

We could specify aspirated realizations for /ptk/ and voiced for /bdg/.

>> If /'/ is to be kept distinct from /x/, /'/ must be [T], giving [aTua]
>> for /a'ua/, which is unlikely to become [awa].
>
> I'm not sure if this is meant to be an anglophone or a universal claim.

A universal phonetic claim.

> Anglophones tend to render [x] as [k], as in _loch, bach, Bach_, and
> Germans have no problem distinguishing /h/ and /x/ systematically,
> though it's arguable that there are no [h] : [x] minimal pairs, as [h]
> is only in onsets whereas /x/ in onsets is realized (in the standard
> accent, at least) as /C/.

For phonetic reasons, [h] is possible only between vowels sufficiently open that the narrowest constriction of the vocal tract is at the glottis, so e & a but not i, u, o. Frication (turbulence) occurs at the locus of narrowest constriction.

Any posterior fricative will tend strongly to assimilate to [C] in environment [i _ i] and to [W] (or labialized [x_w]) in environment [u _ u].

>> It would be an assimilation rather than a fortition. As I've said
>> before, [h] is articulatorily impossible as a realization of /'/
>> in some environments, e.g. /i'i/, at ordinary speech rates,
>
> I articulate /i'i/ as [iCi], /u'u/ as [uWu], /ii/ as /j\i/ (with a voiced
> palatal fricative like Spanish-Spanish "y"), and /uu/ as [wu].

How about /ixi/ and /uxu/?

--And.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 7:37 PM, And Rosta <and....@gmail.com> wrote:

But to be more realistic and hence more conservative, my reading of what xorxes said camxes does, namely make every string analysable as a sequence of CVs, sounds like the best rule.

We can postulate that as the underlying rule, if the four diphthongs ai, au, ei, oi are instances of V, and ., ', i and u are instances of C, and if we allow the buffer vowel to be inserted between consonants and i/u glides, and after the final consonant of a cmevla at the end of a string.

But camxes doesn't know anything about the buffer vowel, so the surface rules are somewhat more complicated. A syllable for camxes can be as long as CCCVVC.

[John Cowan]

And Rosta scripsit:

> Is /stabaa/ an alternative notation or analysis for /staba'a/?

Yes. That's what I thought you were going after.

> I think [hw] is virtually inarticulable. I don't know if anybody knows
> the frequency of [W] or any other phone in the world's languages. The
> fact that it's rare as the primary allophone of a phoneme doesn't
> mean it's rare as a phone.

Fair enough. Wikipedia reports it as phonemic in Cornish and Hupa, and
allophonic in Nahuatl (before voiceless consonants) and Taiwanese
(as an articulation of /hw/), aside from its special status in English.

> How about /ixi/ and /uxu/?

Unless I am very careful, I always articulate [x] as [X] in any language.
I have no trouble with either [iXi] or [uXu].

--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org

Where the wombat has walked, it will inevitably walk again.
(even through brick walls!)

[Jorge Llambías]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Alex Burka <dur...@gmail.com> wrote:

Side note: half of those fu'ivla (156 out of 310) have one or more of kingdom/phylum/class/order/family/genus/species in their definitions, suggesting they are transliterated from Latin (I have not looked at the full list of words). So those may be fixable by simply changing CiV to CiiV, etc.

Changing  CIV to CIIV will work in all cases except when CIV is at the beginning of the word. In those cases, the CI will drop off, e.g.: cionmau -> ciionmau = ci ionmau. 

[Alex Burka]

Indeed. 46 of those: ["cia'o'e", "xua'ai", 'bianfu', 'biorka', 'ciencia', 'cionmau', 'dianzi', 'fiakre', 'fiesta', 'fiorso', 'guanci', 'kuadranta', 'kuaidzi', "kuardicka'u", 'kuargo', 'kuarka', 'kuinke', 'liante', 'liunko', 'luodna', 'mianma', 'niengatu', 'niutni', 'nuansa', 'suenska', 'suomne', 'tiatro', 'tiotka', 'tuitsku', 'violbasu', 'violna', 'violni', 'violtcelo', 'xuandi', 'bie,uaRUC', 'buenosaires', 'guaspis', 'guonJAUS', 'kuadragesim', 'kuadril', 'LIEtuvas', 'lietuvos', 'suomen', 'suomis', 'tienjin', 'tuityr']

[Jorge Llambías]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Alex Burka <dur...@gmail.com> wrote:

Indeed. 46 of those: ["cia'o'e", "xua'ai", 'bianfu', 'biorka', 'ciencia', 'cionmau', 'dianzi', 'fiakre', 'fiesta', 'fiorso', 'guanci', 'kuadranta', 'kuaidzi', "kuardicka'u", 'kuargo', 'kuarka', 'kuinke', 'liante', 'liunko', 'luodna', 'mianma', 'niengatu', 'niutni', 'nuansa', 'suenska', 'suomne', 'tiatro', 'tiotka', 'tuitsku', 'violbasu', 'violna', 'violni', 'violtcelo', 'xuandi', 'bie,uaRUC', 'buenosaires', 'guaspis', 'guonJAUS', 'kuadragesim', 'kuadril', 'LIEtuvas', 'lietuvos', 'suomen', 'suomis', 'tienjin', 'tuityr']

cmevla don't have that problem, cmavo won't fall off of them. so it's 34.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Alex Burka <dur...@gmail.com> wrote:

"cia'o'e", "xua'ai", 'bianfu', 'biorka', 'ciencia', 'cionmau', 'dianzi', 'fiakre', 'fiesta', 'fiorso', 'guanci', 'kuadranta', 'kuaidzi', "kuardicka'u", 'kuargo', 'kuarka', 'kuinke', 'liante', 'liunko', 'luodna', 'mianma', 'niengatu', 'niutni', 'nuansa', 'suenska', 'suomne', 'tiatro', 'tiotka', 'tuitsku', 'violbasu', 'violna', 'violni', 'violtcelo', 'xuandi'

Most of these can be fixed by changing CIV -> CI'V. The only ones that can't be fixed that way are: 'fiakre', 'fiesta', 'kuadranta', 'tiatro'.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

Most of these can be fixed by changing CIV -> CI'V. The only ones that can't be fixed that way are: 'fiakre', 'fiesta', 'kuadranta', 'tiatro'.

Actually, "ku'adranta" is fine, because "dranta" is a slinku'i so "ku'a" stays put.  That only leaves three.

[Jorge Llambías]

But "kuardicka'u" gives a lujvo, so it's back to four.

[Alex Burka]

Just make 'em type 3, I would say, if we were to end up going this route -- they're just cognates with no recorded usage. marcrfiakre, salcrfiesta, dijrtiatro (or marcrfi'akre, salcrfi'esta, dijrti'atro).

As for kuardicka'u (which doesn't show up in the corpus either), if we don't allow the "qu-" sound at all, it's going to be difficult to make a satisfying fu'ivla for "quark". The diabolical solution is just to use the wrong hyphen and turn it back into a zi'evla: ku'andicka'u. Another solution would be to reformulate it as a lujvo: ratslepaudicka'u, or something.

mu'o mi'e la durka

--

[Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG]

On 10/21/2014 2:08 PM, John Cowan wrote:
>> If /'/ is to be kept distinct from /x/, /'/ must be [T], giving [aTua]
>> for /a'ua/, which is unlikely to become [awa].
>

> I'm not sure if this is meant to be an anglophone or a universal claim.

> Anglophones tend to render [x] as [k], as in _loch, bach, Bach_, and
> Germans have no problem distinguishing /h/ and /x/ systematically,
> though it's arguable that there are no [h] : [x] minimal pairs, as [h]
> is only in onsets whereas /x/ in onsets is realized (in the standard
> accent, at least) as /C/.
>

>> It would be an assimilation rather than a fortition. As I've said
>> before, [h] is articulatorily impossible as a realization of /'/
>> in some environments, e.g. /i'i/, at ordinary speech rates,
>

> I articulate /i'i/ as [iCi], /u'u/ as [uWu], /ii/ as /j\i/ (with a voiced
> palatal fricative like Spanish-Spanish "y"), and /uu/ as [wu].
>

>> Obviously it was the glideless /ae, ea, aa/ type that led to Lojban's
>> "'". That in itself was not so bad a move, tho the choice of realization
>> was, but making it contrastive with zero between other vowels gives
>> greater headaches. I'd have just forbidden them altogether; going all
>> Livagian on their ass, I'd allow i to be followed by any vowel but i,
>> u to be followed by any vowel but u, e to be followed by no vowel but i,
>> o to be followed by no vowel but u, and a to be followed by no vowel
>> but i and u.
>

> This would, of course, involve a complete discarding of the cmavo list and
> starting over.

I haven't been following this discussion, and I'm not sure what is
written in CLL about it, but I think what we said originally was that
the apostrophe could permissibly be realized as ANY unvoiced consonant
sound not otherwise found in Lojban (but hopefully being fairly
consistent at using the same sound all the time). One of our original
Lojban students liked to tease everyone by using unvoiced "th" as his
realization of all apostrophes. It sounded funny and probably caused
everyone else to try harder to use 'h'.

lojbab

[Jonathan Jones]

On Oct 23, 2014 8:24 AM, "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
><snip>

> I haven't been following this discussion, and I'm not sure what is written in CLL about it, but I think what we said originally was that the apostrophe could permissibly be realized as ANY unvoiced consonant sound not otherwise found in Lojban (but hopefully being fairly consistent at using the same sound all the time).  One of our original Lojban students liked to tease everyone by using unvoiced "th" as his realization of all apostrophes.  It sounded funny and probably caused everyone else to try harder to use 'h'.
>
> lojbab

I'm fairly certain I remember reading the bit about " ' " as well. IIRC, it was either in the bit about "strange" pronunciations (c ,j ,x, etc.), or the bit about being allowed to for example pronounce {mlatu} as "milatu" using the "I" in "fit".

[guskant]

I think the decision should be done as soon as possible. As I mentioned in my second post to the thread, allowing CgV to ma'ovla is critical in parsing. {jiebroda} is a fu'ivla for the current jbofi'e+yacc, while it consists of two words for the current camxes. While we are discussing, CgV cmavo are increasing in la jbovlaste.

If we have enough discussed it, it is time for voting. As a voting system, I would recommend approval voting in order to reduce a spoiler effect. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

How and where can we hold an election under an approval voting system?

Or do you recommend another system? 

Here are the candidates that I consider. If you noticed any lack, please inform us of it.

1.1.1

allow CgV in cmevla/fu'ivla/ma'ovla (current camxes)

1.1.2

allow CgV except [sibilant or dental C + iV] in cmevla/fu'ivla/ma'ovla

1.2.1

allow CgV in cmevla/fu'ivla, disallow it in ma'ovla (current jbofi'e+yacc, regarding CLL3.4 as a rule)

1.2.2

allow CgV except [sibilant or dental C + iV] in cmevla/fu'ivla, disallow all CgV in ma'ovla

1.3.1

allow CgV in cmevla, disallow it in fu'ivla/ma'ovla (not discussed, but my preference)

1.3.2

allow CgV except [sibilant or dental C + iV] in cmevla, disallow all CgV in fu'ivla/ma'ovla

2

disallow CgV in cmevla/fu'ivla/ma'ovla (ban it in Lojban word)

mu'o

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-12-11 9:12 GMT+03:00 guskant <gusni...@gmail.com>:

1.3.1

allow CgV in cmevla, disallow it in fu'ivla/ma'ovla (not discussed, but my preference)

I vote for this. + I prefer it to be just a synonym (dialect variation of the same sequence but with a {'} inside. co'o zo guaspi

[John Cowan]

Gleki Arxokuna scripsit:

> I vote for this. + I prefer it to be just a synonym (dialect variation of
> the same sequence but with a {'} inside. co'o zo guaspi

I can live with this, but I'd prefer to ban it altogether.

--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org

Clear? Huh! Why a four-year-old child could understand this report.
Run out and find me a four-year-old child. I can't make head or tail
out of it. --Rufus T. Firefly on government reports

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-12-11 16:16 GMT+03:00 John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org>:

Gleki Arxokuna scripsit:

> I vote for this. + I prefer it to be just a synonym (dialect variation of
> the same sequence but with a {'} inside. co'o zo guaspi

I can live with this, but I'd prefer to ban it altogether.

It depends on in what way should it be banned. 

I vote for banning it from the formal grammar however, I vote for the preprocessor to be able to autocorrect {jie} back to {ji'e}. Speech recognition must be able to recognize both variants.

--
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        co...@ccil.org
Clear?  Huh!  Why a four-year-old child could understand this report.
Run out and find me a four-year-old child.  I can't make head or tail
out of it.        --Rufus T. Firefly on government reports

[Alex Burka]

The preprocessor thing doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Does anyone else support this "dialectal variation"? We don't preprocess {ie} to {i'e}, so I don't see the point in changing ?{jie} to {ji'e}. They're quite different sounds, and moreover different syllable counts, so you'll be complecting the stress and word segmentation rules as well as breaking audiovisual isomorphism.

As for the larger question, I don't have a very strong opinion. I lean towards consistency (that would be banning it or allowing it everywhere). If we do allow it, maybe the sibilants should still be an exception for ease of pronunciation (I don't have trouble with ?{guaspi}, but ?{jiespi} and ?{ciaspi} are difficult).

So if we're approval-voting: 1.1.2 + 2. But I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

mu'o mi'e la durkavore

[Alex Burka]

mu'onai One more thought: along with sibilants/dentals, what about liquids? Those are more of a problem for me: without a preceding vowel, ?{lua} is comes out as {lu ua} or {ly ua}. Unfortunately ?{.influenza} is in jbovlaste.

mu'oja'ai

[Gleki Arxokuna]

There wasnt any reasonable consistency and there isnt. Take {mz} but {nz}, {ms} and {ns}.

[Alex Burka]

I mean consistency as in not having sounds that are allowed in one word class but not another (zifcme aside).

[Gleki Arxokuna]

This will be {influ'enza} and for me {influenza} will be an acceptable pronunciation.

Just like {klamygau} is the same as {klagau}

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 3:12 AM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:

1.3.1

allow CgV in cmevla, disallow it in fu'ivla/ma'ovla (not discussed, but my preference)

This would be my preference too, noting that it'd be allowed in cmevla in the same way that .ktktkt. is a valid cmevla, i.e. as a zifcmevla, not as a jbocmevla, which must consist of lojbanic syllables.

[John Cowan]

Alex Burka scripsit:

> mu'onai One more thought: along with sibilants/dentals, what about
> liquids? Those are more of a problem for me: without a preceding vowel,
> ?{lua} is comes out as {lu ua} or {ly ua}. Unfortunately ?{.influenza}
> is in jbovlaste.

I continue to think they should all be banned, except possibly in cmevla.
The phonology is what it is, and there is no need to extend it further.

--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org

If I have seen farther than others, it is because I am surrounded by dwarves.
--Murray Gell-Mann

[Gleki Arxokuna]

I change my vote. I vote for all such combinations to be banned everywhere, even in cmevla however the existing words are to be assumed to have {'} inside illegal CVV combinations. Jbovlaste should redirect obsolete words to their apostrophe-enabled counterparts. This will retain many existing words.

[guskant]

OK, I added [liquid C+uV] to the relevant options, and created an approval-voting form on Google Docs:

http://goo.gl/forms/5KbiK5yBky

You are required to be logged in to your Google account in order to vote. You can modify your response after voting. I think of closing the poll on 2014-12-27 at 0:00 UTC, if you have no problem about the date and time. 

If I don't misunderstand, everybody interested should have a voting right. Enjoy voting!

[Gleki Arxokuna]

This doesn't include an option to retain existing words that can be preprocessed into apostophe-enabled or assumed to be their synonyms.

--

[Alex Burka]

Under this scheme, mu'a {guaspi} becomes {gu'aspi}. Do we keep it as a tcizbaga word or change it?

[Gleki Arxokuna]

that would be a separate poll with the options:

1. i approve of shutting down the whole brivla morphology distinction

2. i approve of shutting down the brivla morphology distinction except for lujvo with jvajvo-generating suffixes/prefixes like -gau, cma- and similar

3. i dont approve of changing it

etc.

[guskant]

Le vendredi 12 décembre 2014 16:59:40 UTC+9, la gleki a écrit :

This doesn't include an option to retain existing words that can be preprocessed into apostophe-enabled or assumed to be their synonyms.

You should create another poll for that problem. The current poll is to decide if CgV is allowed in all or some Lojban words. Your problem is to be decided _if_ the current poll results in other than 1.1.1.

By the way, if all existing CgV forms are preprocessed into CV'V forms, some of fu'ivla will become lujvo. It is not very desirable for me. 

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Yes, this interacts with the tcizbaga problem noi drata nabmi 

[selpa'i]

la .guskant. cu cusku di'e

> OK, I added [liquid C+uV] to the relevant options, and created an
> approval-voting form on Google Docs:
> http://goo.gl/forms/5KbiK5yBky

I have cast my vote. (but I might change it)

For me the decision is between disallowing all CgV or only the difficult
ones (whether it's in brivla, cmavo or cmevla). Banning all of them
requires fewer rules to learn, so it is more in service of an
easy-to-learn language. On the other hand, having to say {tu'itsku} for
{tuitsku} hurts a bit, that's why I'm not 100% if I really want to ban
all CgV yet.

However, keeping them in cmevla isn't something I find particularly
interesting, because I prefer all Lojban words to follow the same
phonotactics (so I'm not a big fan of zifcme like {rktk}).

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o

[John Cowan]

guskant scripsit:

> OK, I added [liquid C+uV] to the relevant options, and created an
> approval-voting form on Google Docs:
> http://goo.gl/forms/5KbiK5yBky

I already voted nay (2), but "whichever gets the most votes wins" is not
really fair, as there is only one way to vote against, and many ways to
vote for. The 1s should be aggregated, and if they outnumber the 2s
collectively, then look to see which 1 option wins.

--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org

Female celebrity stalker, on a hot morning in Cairo:
"Imagine, Colonel Lawrence, ninety-two already!"
El Auruns's reply: "Many happy returns of the day!"

[And Rosta]

On 12 Dec 2014 10:30, "selpa'i" <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:
> having to say {tu'itsku} for {tuitsku} hurts a bit,

What word(s) would phonetic [tuitsku] be?

--And.

[Alex Burka]

It's been used for "to tweet", as in on Twitter.

--

[And Rosta]

I meant what Lojban word(s).

If [tuisku] is something other than {tuisku}, e.g. {tu uisku}, then {tuisku} should be illicit; otherwise it should be licit.

--And.

[Alex Burka]

I'm confused. {tuuitsku} breaks up into {tu uitsku}, no matter what we do, but if CgV is disallowed then ?{tuitsku} would be invalid. The separated words would be {tu .itsku} with the required pause.

I apologize in advance if I'm still talking past you and answering a different question that what you asked.

mu'o mi'e la durkavore

[Alex Burka]

I just realized you were probably using square brackets for IPA. So if I understand correctly (relying on a Wikipedia chart here) [tuwitsku] would be {tu uitsku}, gliding from the [u] to the [i], and [tuʔitsku] is {tu .itsku} with a pause/glottal stop in between. As I understand it Lojban is of the opinion that [tuitsku] is indistinguishable from [tuwitsku].

However, the debated ?{tuitsku} is pronounced [twitsku].

mu'o mi'e la durkavore

[And Rosta]

On 12 Dec 2014 23:27, "Alex Burka" <abu...@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>
> I just realized you were probably using square brackets for IPA. So if I understand correctly (relying on a Wikipedia chart here) [tuwitsku] would be {tu uitsku}, gliding from the [u] to the [i], and [tuʔitsku] is {tu .itsku} with a pause/glottal stop in between. As I understand it Lojban is of the opinion that [tuitsku] is indistinguishable from [tuwitsku].
>
> However, the debated ?{tuitsku} is pronounced [twitsku].

[w] is merely a necessarily-short subvariety of [u], and Lojban should not be making phonological contrasts based on segment duration, because such contrasts are not phonetically robust. That is, it's a bad idea for [tuitsku] to be ambiguous between /tu witsku/ and /twitsku/, and that ambiguity should be remedied and nullified by forbidding one of them. My choice would be to forbid word-initial /w, y/, but since that's not an option under consideration, it must be /twitsku/ that is declared illicit.

And

[John Cowan]

And Rosta scripsit:

> [w] is merely a necessarily-short subvariety of [u], and Lojban should not
> be making phonological contrasts based on segment duration, because such
> contrasts are not phonetically robust.

Tell that to the Hungarians! Oh, wait ....

(Seriously, vowel length is reconstructible to Proto-Finno-Ugric, though
conventionally not to Proto-Uralic.)

> That is, it's a bad idea for
> [tuitsku] to be ambiguous between /tu witsku/ and /twitsku/, and that
> ambiguity should be remedied and nullified by forbidding one of them.

The current prescription forbids both of them: "tuitsku" has the illicit
CgV form, and "tu uitsku" has be [tu?witsku]. I'm good with this.
Lojban's phonotactics are as arbitrary as every other feature of the
language, and I see no need to liberalize them.

--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org

I Hope, Sir, that we are not mutually Un-friended by this Difference
which hath happened betwixt us.
--Thomas Fuller, Appeal of Injured Innocence (1659)

[And Rosta]

On 14 Dec 2014 02:57, "John Cowan" <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
>
> And Rosta scripsit:

> > That is, it's a bad idea for
> > [tuitsku] to be ambiguous between /tu witsku/ and /twitsku/, and that
> > ambiguity should be remedied and nullified by forbidding one of them.
>
> The current prescription forbids both of them:  "tuitsku" has the illicit
> CgV form, and "tu uitsku" has be [tu?witsku].  I'm good with this.
> Lojban's phonotactics are as arbitrary as every other feature of the
> language, and I see no need to liberalize them.

Is "tuuitsku" (one word) also illicit? If not, then [tuitsku] is "tuuitsku" (and *tuitsku is rightly illicit, if putatively distinct from "tuuitsku"). Otherwise, the failure of [tuitsku] to realize any word constitutes an arbitrary prohibition, and it is in the nature of arbitrary prohibitions that there is a need to liberalize them. (Not necessarily an irresistible need: conservatism may resist it, due to feeling that the cost of change outweighs the benefit of liberalization.)

--And.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:57 PM, John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

And Rosta scripsit:

> That is, it's a bad idea for
> [tuitsku] to be ambiguous between /tu witsku/ and /twitsku/, and that
> ambiguity should be remedied and nullified by forbidding one of them.

The current prescription forbids both of them:  "tuitsku" has the illicit
CgV form, and "tu uitsku" has be [tu?witsku]. 

But CLL doesn't forbid CgV's in fu'ivla. It has examples such as "saskrkuarka" and "bangrblgaria", so I don't think CLL has a problem with "tuitsku". 

CLL does forbid "tuuitsku", but due to morphological rather than phonotactic constraints. CLL requires a consonant cluster in the first five letters of a brivla, and it also requires a pause before words beginning with a glide, so for CLL "tuuitsku" is a non-word form much like "slinku'i", phonotactically acceptable but morphologically unanalyzable. CLL would not have a problem with, for example, "blatuuitsku" as a fu'ivla form distinct from "blatuitsku", one with four syllables and the other with three.

camxes currently allows both "tuitsku" (a fu'ivla)  and "tuuitsku" = "tu uitsku", because camxes doesn't require a pause before words that begin with a glide. I wouldn't have a problem with disallowing CgV, but it is a change from the current official prescription.

 

Lojban's phonotactics are as arbitrary as every other feature of the
language, and I see no need to liberalize them.

In this case the need is to make them more strict.

[John Cowan]

Jorge Llambías scripsit:

> But CLL doesn't forbid CgV's in fu'ivla. It has examples such as
> "saskrkuarka" and "bangrblgaria", so I don't think CLL has a problem with
> "tuitsku".

I now think that these were mistakes.

--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org

An observable characteristic is not necessarily a functional requirement.
--John Hudson

[Alex Burka]

By the way, if I modify the "onset" rule from

onset <- h / consonant? glide / initial

to

onset <- h / glide / initial

This cuts out {saskrkuarka}, but {bangrblgaria} is saved by being parsed as {ban,gr,bl,GAR,ia} (whereas with the current PEG it parses as {ban,gr,bl,GA,ria}).

Is this how we would do it, if we end up prohibiting some or all CgV, or would it be more restrictive, like adding "!glide" at the end of the "consonant" rule (which does kill both of these examples)?

mu'o mi'e la durkavore

[John Cowan]

And Rosta scripsit:

> Is "tuuitsku" (one word) also illicit?

Yes.

> Otherwise, the failure of [tuitsku] to realize any word constitutes an
> arbitrary prohibition, and it is in the nature of arbitrary prohibitions
> that there is a need to liberalize them.

As arbitrary prohibitions go, this is nothing compared to the limitations
on initial CCs.

--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org

Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz.
--Calvin, giving Newton's First Law "in his own words"

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Alex Burka <abu...@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:

By the way, if I modify the "onset" rule from

onset <- h / consonant? glide / initial

to

onset <- h / glide / initial

This cuts out {saskrkuarka}, but {bangrblgaria} is saved by being parsed as {ban,gr,bl,GAR,ia} (whereas with the current PEG it parses as {ban,gr,bl,GA,ria}).

Is this how we would do it, if we end up prohibiting some or all CgV, or would it be more restrictive, like adding "!glide" at the end of the "consonant" rule (which does kill both of these examples)?

I'd say !glide after each consonant, same as !h. If we add it in the consonant rule, it would still allow a glide after a consonantal syllable, I think. This however would mean that CG is disallowed in all cmevla, and some traditional cmevla like "nitcion" become illegal.

[Robert LeChevalier]

On 12/12/2014 6:27 PM, Alex Burka wrote:
> I just realized you were probably using square brackets for IPA. So if I
> understand correctly (relying on a Wikipedia chart here) [tuwitsku]
> would be {tu uitsku}, gliding from the [u] to the [i], and [tuʔitsku] is
> {tu .itsku} with a pause/glottal stop in between. As I understand it
> Lojban is of the opinion that [tuitsku] is indistinguishable from
> [tuwitsku].
>
> However, the debated ?{tuitsku} is pronounced [twitsku].
>
> mu'o mi'e la durkavore
>
> On Friday, December 12, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Alex Burka wrote:
>
>> I'm confused. {tuuitsku} breaks up into {tu uitsku}, no matter what we
>> do, but if CgV is disallowed then ?{tuitsku} would be invalid. The
>> separated words would be {tu .itsku} with the required pause.
>>
>> I apologize in advance if I'm still talking past you and answering a
>> different question that what you asked.
>>
>> mu'o mi'e la durkavore
>>
>> On Friday, December 12, 2014 at 2:16 PM, And Rosta wrote:
>>
>>> I meant what Lojban word(s).
>>>
>>> If [tuisku] is something other than {tuisku}, e.g. {tu uisku}, then
>>> {tuisku} should be illicit; otherwise it should be licit.

I have not been following this discussion, and defer to Cowan if he
disagrees with anything I say, but my recollection is that we permitted
"glides" to be WRITTEN in fu'ivla, but that they were considered to the
equivalent of the same string with a close-comma between the two
letters, so that tuitsku would be the same word as tu,itsku

lojbab

[John Cowan]

Robert LeChevalier scripsit:

> I have not been following this discussion, and defer to Cowan if he
> disagrees with anything I say, but my recollection is that we
> permitted "glides" to be WRITTEN in fu'ivla, but that they were
> considered to the equivalent of the same string with a close-comma
> between the two letters, so that tuitsku would be the same word as
> tu,itsku

That's true. But the trouble with tu,itsku is that it can't be well
distinguished from tu,uitsku. In short, my view is that fu'ivla should
allow the same combinations, and only the same combinations, as lujvo,
with the addition (though I don't like them much) of the syllabic consonants.

--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org

Values of beeta will give rise to dom!
(5th/6th edition 'mv' said this if you tried to rename '.' or
'..' entries; see http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/odd.html)

[And Rosta]

On 14 Dec 2014 19:03, "John Cowan" <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
>
> And Rosta scripsit:

> > Otherwise, the failure of [tuitsku] to realize any word constitutes an
> > arbitrary prohibition, and it is in the nature of arbitrary prohibitions
> > that there is a need to liberalize them.
>
> As arbitrary prohibitions go, this is nothing compared to the limitations
> on initial CCs.

If I were actually casting my vote, instead of proxying it to xorxes on the grounds of his sounder judgement, I'd vote to liberalize those initial clusters too. (And it would even not invalidate any prior usage.)

--And.

[Jorge Llambías]

Depending on which limitations we're talking about, it would invalidate some usage. For example, if "ks" was to become a valid initial, then the fu'ivla "leksiko" would no longer be a valid fu'ivla, it would become "le ksiko".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[And Rosta]

Hmm. I suppose that to preserve validity of prior usage, you'd have to say that a word can't start with /ks/ but can start with /.ks/.

--And.

[guskant]

This is reminder and interim report.

The poll will be closed on 2014-12-27 at 0:00 UTC (it might be a few hours later depending on my connection to the Internet.)

http://goo.gl/forms/5KbiK5yBky

Currently, "2. disallow CgV in cmevla/fu'ivla/ma'ovla" is predominant.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1kJLBvjkoDpmvA9vJS_lf8SpCYAZvY4bMx1pj8uhWqRs/viewanalytics

As a supporter of "1.3.1. allow CgV in cmevla, disallow it in fu'ivla/ma'ovla", I make a comment here:

CgV in cmevla does not affect lexical analysis, while that in fu'ivla/ma'ovla does. Disallowing CgV in cmevla is very strong restriction. It affects not only traditional names like {nitcion}, or popular names like {tuitr}, but also a standard of lojbanization of words of natural languages. CgV in cmevla sometimes makes things easy. For example, many Chinese names have CgV-like phoneme strings. Chinese "Huan", "Han" and "Hu An" are distinguished from each other. If CgV is disallowed in cmevla, it will be difficult to find out a reasonable standard of lojbanization of them.

mu'o

[And Rosta]

On 19 Dec 2014 01:57, "guskant" <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Currently, "2. disallow CgV in cmevla/fu'ivla/ma'ovla" is predominant.
>
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1kJLBvjkoDpmvA9vJS_lf8SpCYAZvY4bMx1pj8uhWqRs/viewanalytics
>
>
>
> As a supporter of "1.3.1. allow CgV in cmevla, disallow it in fu'ivla/ma'ovla", I make a comment here:
>
> CgV in cmevla does not affect lexical analysis, while that in fu'ivla/ma'ovla does. Disallowing CgV in cmevla is very strong restriction. It affects not only traditional names like {nitcion}, or popular names like {tuitr}, but also a standard of lojbanization of words of natural languages. CgV in cmevla sometimes makes things easy. For example, many Chinese names have CgV-like phoneme strings. Chinese "Huan", "Han" and "Hu An" are distinguished from each other. If CgV is disallowed in cmevla, it will be difficult to find out a reasonable standard of lojbanization of them.

I'd be in favour of (3), defining CGV as equivalent to CGGV (the same G in each case). The equivalence is certainly orthographic; I can't say if it's also phonological, because there is no credible consensus analysis of Lojban phonology. Any potential phonetic contrast between CGV & CGGV is feeble, and hence a phonological contrast between them is undesirable.

This then allows CGV in cmevla. Whether it allows CGV in other sorts of word depends entirely and independently on whether words can begin with GV, which would be a matter for a different poll.

--And.

[Alex Burka]

Even though cultural neutrality is important, we shouldn't include phonetic distinctions in Lojban just because we can find them in a natural language... but I suppose zifcme are a different matter. I see your point, and I changed my vote so it no longer includes (2), but I may change my mind again, who knows. As for the names, I would guess:

[if (2) wins]

Han => {.xan.}

Hu An => {.xus. .an.} or {.xuuan.} or {.xu'an.}

Huan => {.xuuan.} or {.xu'an.}

[if (1.3.1) or something more permissive wins]

Han => {.xan.}

Hu An => {.xus. .an.} or {.xuuan.} or {.xu'an.}

Huan => {.xuan.} or {.xuuan.} or {.xu'an.}

So there are still options (some more attractive than others) either way.

mu'o mi'e la durkavore

--

[mai...@gmail.com]

Hello BPFK, 

I am delurking to inform you that I voted for 1.3.1 (allow CGV in cmevla, disallow it in fu'ivla/ma'ovla).  Feel free to disregard my (non-member) vote if you wish.

My vote comes with the qualification that the special GV cases /ii/ and /uu/ be made illegal (as others have suggested).  With all respect, it strikes me as perverse to be seriously considering whacking harmless syllables like /miu/ and /kua/ from cmevla when sequences like /lei/, /leii/, /leiii/ and /leiiii/ are all legal and contrastive, as are presumably /u'u/, /uu'u/, /u'uu/, etc.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the only two common words that contain these pairs are {.ii} and {.uu}.  I would suggest replacing these with {.iai} and {.uau}, but they can also be grandfathered in as (the only) exceptions.  Unless there is something that I have overlooked, removing /ii/ & /uu/ from the language seems so sensible and harmless that I would suggest that the BPFK drop the gavel and make it so prior to deciding the broader GV issue. 

Once /ii/ & /uu/ are removed, then the monosyllabic and glided disyllabic realizations of any diphthong could be in free variation.  So /ia/ could be realized as either [ja] or [ija].

I would also advocate the following:

- forbid GV in fu'ivla/ma'ovla except after /./ (word-initially).  The pronunciation of disyllabic /ia/ and that of /i'a/ are too close.

- allow GV in cmevla.  there would be no hard rules on realization, but these might be regarded as suggested guidelines:
  - pronounce /iV/ monosyllabic after onset /p b f v m k g x ./  
  - pronounce /uV/ monosyllabic after onset /t d s z c j k g x ./
  - if preceding C could be part of a valid coda, then the following GV is initial and therefore monosyllabic.  e.g. {.sonias.} = /.son,ias./ for Sonya.
  - disyllabic elsewhere
 
- I don't see a problem with /eu/ and /ou/ in cmevla.  If /ii/ and /uu/ were gone, then these could be pronounced [ewu] and [owu], just as /ei/ could be pronounced [eji].

- forbid /'/ adjacent to ANY underlying glide in ALL words.  If /'/ is [h], then /poi'i/ sounds just like /poixi/.  Perhaps /poi'i/ could be replaced with /po'ei/.  This rule wouldn't solve all problems with /'/, but it would help.

Best regards,
-Mike S.

 

[Alex Burka]

What makes {ii} and {uu} any worse than other glides? I was unaware of previous suggestions to remove them (since I am relatively jbocitno) but I wouldn't be so quick to call "dropping the gavel" to remove two very common attitudinals harmless!

mu'o mi'a la durkavore

--

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 5:34 PM, <mai...@gmail.com> wrote:

My vote comes with the qualification that the special GV cases /ii/ and /uu/ be made illegal (as others have suggested).  With all respect, it strikes me as perverse to be seriously considering whacking harmless syllables like /miu/ and /kua/ from cmevla when sequences like /lei/, /leii/, /leiii/ and /leiiii/ are all legal and contrastive, as are presumably /u'u/, /uu'u/, /u'uu/, etc.

"leiii" and "u'uu" are not legal by camxes, which does not allow a glide after a diphthong (so "lei,ii" is out) and does not allow a glide after the apostrophe (so "u'uu" is out), 

"lei", "le,ii" and "le,ii,ii" contrast in number of syllables. 

 

I would also advocate the following:

- forbid GV in fu'ivla/ma'ovla except after /./ (word-initially).  The pronunciation of disyllabic /ia/ and that of /i'a/ are too close.

Would it be more distinct word-initially than in other positions?  It seems that .i,avla vs .i'avla are as distinct/undistinct as mi,avla vs mi'avla.

[Alex Burka]

I also thought that glides can't be pronounced disyllabically, because then our stress rules would be inconsistent (if you pronounce {brodaiare} as {bro,da,i,a,re} and stress the /i/ then wouldn't it fall apart?). So I don't know exactly what you mean by {i,avla} and {mi,avla} here. Am I hopelessly confused?

[mai...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 19, 2014 3:54:03 PM UTC-5, Alex Burka wrote:

What makes {ii} and {uu} any worse than other glides?

In a nutshell, they're trickier.  With all other Lojban diphthongs, the speaker is free to pronounce /i/ and /u/ as either semivowels or approximants at his/her discretion.  However, a semivowel pronunciation of the initial glide in /ii/ and /uu/ would, by definition, merely result in /i:/ and /u:/ (slightly longer vowels).  To avoid a long-vowel realization, therefore, /i/ and /u/ glides must be heightened to approximants-bordering-on-fricatives in those positions and only in those positions.  This is bad for /u/, because fricativizing the /u/-glide will make it sound much like /v/.  Not many natural languages have a /w/-/v/ distinction to begin with, and the needless presence of /uu/ in the language makes that distinction tougher.  The speaker has to pronounce a glide rather precisely in those positions to maintain proper contrastiveness.  Likewise, the first /i/ in /ii/ will be prone to be pronounced as a fricative or even an affricate by some speakers with certain L1s.  Thus /i/ can be confused with /dj/. 

It's natural for languages to either fortify or eliminate glides in sequences like /ii/ and /uu/.  Glides sometimes get fortified as a matter of course.  When some Spanish speakers say "yo" in their language I hear "Joe", even though they aren't really using the English J-sound, and Swedes do something similar with their "j".  On the other hand, I have heard at least one English speaker pronounce "yeast" exactly like "east", removing the glide.  In light of such examples, IMHO it would be far more sensible to remove /ii/ and /uu/, allowing /i/ and /u/ to remain _vowels_ or _semivowels_ in all positions, and also allowing diphthongs to be "drawled" into two syllables by speakers who have trouble with them.
 

I was unaware of previous suggestions to remove them (since I am relatively jbocitno) but I wouldn't be so quick to call "dropping the gavel" to remove two very common attitudinals harmless!

Those two words could (and given reality probably must) remain as exceptions to the proposed new rule.

On Friday, December 19, 2014 4:22:22 PM UTC-5, xorxes wrote:

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 5:34 PM, <mai...@gmail.com> wrote:

My vote comes with the qualification that the special GV cases /ii/ and /uu/ be made illegal (as others have suggested).  With all respect, it strikes me as perverse to be seriously considering whacking harmless syllables like /miu/ and /kua/ from cmevla when sequences like /lei/, /leii/, /leiii/ and /leiiii/ are all legal and contrastive, as are presumably /u'u/, /uu'u/, /u'uu/, etc.

"leiii" and "u'uu" are not legal by camxes, which does not allow a glide after a diphthong (so "lei,ii" is out) and does not allow a glide after the apostrophe (so "u'uu" is out), 

"lei", "le,ii" and "le,ii,ii" contrast in number of syllables. 

Then the situation is better than what I described.  But the distinction between "lei" and "le,ii" is still gratuitous IMHO.  Wouldn't it be better to allow these two to be variants of {lei}?

 

 

I would also advocate the following:

- forbid GV in fu'ivla/ma'ovla except after /./ (word-initially).  The pronunciation of disyllabic /ia/ and that of /i'a/ are too close.

Would it be more distinct word-initially than in other positions?  It seems that .i,avla vs .i'avla are as distinct/undistinct as mi,avla vs mi'avla.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

That's true, but there's no choice but to allow the contrast in that position given all the existing words, especially ma'ovla, starting with /.GV/.  Despite that, it still may be wise to disallow GV in non-cmevla wherever it can be disallowed.   IIRC La Mukti's impact report seems to show the new rule can be applied with a small but not a huge impact on the existing lexicon.  Just my two cents.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Alex Burka <abu...@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:

I also thought that glides can't be pronounced disyllabically, because then our stress rules would be inconsistent (if you pronounce {brodaiare} as {bro,da,i,a,re} and stress the /i/ then wouldn't it fall apart?).

The stress should be on the penultimate nucleus, in this case "a".  Pronouncing the glide as if it were a separate syllable doesn't break anything (much like pronouncing "na" as if it were two syllables "n,a") although it does make it more likely that it could be confused with something else.

 

So I don't know exactly what you mean by {i,avla} and {mi,avla} here. Am I hopelessly confused?

I was addressing your proposal to forbid ia in fu'ivla/ma'ovla except word-initially, because i,a and i'a are too close. I don't understand why they are more distinct word-initially than in other parts of the word. 

[Alex Burka]

I'm not maikxlx, but I was asking whether you were making a distinction between {ia} and {i,a} (because I thought that under camxes there was no such distinction).

mu'o mi'e la durkavore

--

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Alex Burka <abu...@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:

I'm not maikxlx, but I was asking whether you were making a distinction between {ia} and {i,a} (because I thought that under camxes there was no such distinction).

Oops, sorry about that;

Indeed camxes completely ignores commas. I was addressing maikxlx's ideas. I don't understand what the rationale would be for allowing "ia" word-initially but not word-medially. Why is it more distinct word-initially than word-medially?

[John Cowan]

mai...@gmail.com scripsit:

> This is bad for /u/, because fricativizing the /u/-glide will make
> it sound much like /v/. Not many natural languages have a /w/-/v/
> distinction to begin with, and the needless presence of /uu/ in the
> language makes that distinction tougher.

The reason /wu/ works well in English is that for the last sixty years
/u/ has been moving forward in all or most accents, whereas /w/ has
remained fully back. Consequently, even the semivowel pronunciation of
/w/ won't blend into the following /u/.

> On the other hand, I have heard at least one English speaker pronounce
> "yeast" exactly like "east", removing the glide.

Indeed, the English expression "donkey's years", meaning "a very long
time", derives from a dialect (possibly Sussex) in which "ear" and
"year" are homophones. The idea is that a long time is compared to a
donkey's ears in length.

> In light of such examples, IMHO it would be far more sensible to
> remove /ii/ and /uu/, allowing /i/ and /u/ to remain _vowels_ or
> _semivowels_ in all positions, and also allowing diphthongs to be
> "drawled" into two syllables by speakers who have trouble with them.

I agree, though I also agree that we are stuck with the words "ii" and
"uu". In Loglan there are also "aa", "ee", and "oo", though there are
constraints on these: one of the two vowels *must* bear the stress. In
addition, they cannot appear in fu'ivla, and "ee" and "oo" are rare (and
I hope will stay that way).

--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org

First known example of political correctness: After Nurhachi had united
all the other Jurchen tribes under the leadership of the Manchus, his
successor Abahai (1592-1643) issued an order that the name Jurchen should
be banned, and from then on, they were all to be called Manchus.
--S. Robert Ramsey, The Languages of China

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:13 PM, <mai...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, December 19, 2014 4:22:22 PM UTC-5, xorxes wrote:

"lei", "le,ii" and "le,ii,ii" contrast in number of syllables. 

Then the situation is better than what I described.  But the distinction between "lei" and "le,ii" is still gratuitous IMHO.  Wouldn't it be better to allow these two to be variants of {lei}?

Well, it depends on how much we're willing to reform. My assumption is that Lojban needs to distinguish between the four forms "le'i", "le .i", "le ii" and "lei". We have six candidate pronunciations: /lehi/, /le?i/, /le?ji/, /leji/, /lei/, /lej/.

Obviously /lehi/ -> "le'i", /le?i/ -> "le .i" and /lej/ -> "lei". 

That leaves three pronunciations from which to choose for "le ii", and for me the best choice is /leji/ because /le?ji/ is way too close to /le?i/, closer than /leji/ is to /lej/, due to syllable count.

I would leave /le?ji/ and /lei/ as dispreferred pronunciations, the first one for "le ii" and the second one for "lei".

Now, if "ii" was not a Lojban word, things would be different, and we could give /lej/, /lei/ and /leji/ all to "lei", and /le?i/ and /le?ji/ to "le .i"   but I'm working under the assumption that "ii" is a Lojban word and needs to be accomodated. 

[John Cowan]

Jorge Llambías scripsit:

> Well, it depends on how much we're willing to reform. My assumption is that
> Lojban needs to distinguish between the four forms "le'i", "le .i", "le ii"
> and "lei". We have six candidate pronunciations: /lehi/, /le?i/, /le?ji/,
> /leji/, /lei/, /lej/.

There is also "lei .i".

> Obviously /lehi/ -> "le'i", /le?i/ -> "le .i" and /lej/ -> "lei".

Yes.

> That leaves three pronunciations from which to choose for "le ii", and for
> me the best choice is /leji/ because /le?ji/ is way too close to /le?i/,
> closer than /leji/ is to /lej/, due to syllable count.

I recognize the force of this, but becdause "lei .i" has to be "lej?i"
I think "le .ii" has to be /le?ji/. This is no worse than the similarity
of initial "ii" and "i", which (for example) is completely inaudible
to sinophones: they write "pinyin" (in Latin script) but pronounce
it /pinin/. In practice this means that /ji/ has to be pronounced with
an approximant.

It really sucks to have "ii" and "uu" at all. They should be confined to
the attitudinals, and *never* used anywhere else.

> I would leave /le?ji/ and /lei/ as dispreferred pronunciations, the first
> one for "le ii" and the second one for "lei".

I agree that /lei/ should be dispreferred for "lei".

--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org

You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! `Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 1:11 PM, John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

Jorge Llambías scripsit:

> Well, it depends on how much we're willing to reform. My assumption is that
> Lojban needs to distinguish between the four forms "le'i", "le .i", "le ii"
> and "lei". We have six candidate pronunciations: /lehi/, /le?i/, /le?ji/,
> /leji/, /lei/, /lej/.

There is also "lei .i".

And worse "lei ii".  

> Obviously /lehi/ -> "le'i", /le?i/ -> "le .i" and /lej/ -> "lei".

Yes.

> That leaves three pronunciations from which to choose for "le ii", and for
> me the best choice is /leji/ because /le?ji/ is way too close to /le?i/,
> closer than /leji/ is to /lej/, due to syllable count.

I recognize the force of this, but becdause "lei .i" has to be "lej?i"

and "lei ii" has to be /lej?ji/ or /lej/-pause-/ji/, since we don't allow /lejji/. Yes, that's unfortunate.

I think "le .ii" has to be /le?ji/.  This is no worse than the similarity
of initial "ii" and "i", which (for example) is completely inaudible
to sinophones:  they write "pinyin" (in Latin script) but pronounce
it /pinin/.  In practice this means that /ji/ has to be pronounced with
an approximant.

It really sucks to have "ii" and "uu" at all.  They should be confined to
the attitudinals, and *never* used anywhere else.

To me allowing "iibroda" while rejecting "iibro da" doesn't make a lot of sense. It shouldn't be a matter of word class, we either allow the syllable "ii" or we don't. Also, if "ii" is an attitudinal, "ii'a" could be one as well.

If the words "ii" and "uu" are to be treated as complete anomalies, then the camxes morphology may need to be rethought. It might then make sense to allow syllables without onsets, treat ia, ie, io, iu as bisyllabic, and allow ae, ao, ea, eo, eu, oa, oe, ou as well. 

[Jacob Errington]

My stance on this issue, which I believe is a decent compromise between the different issues raised in this thread (which I will not take the time to respond to individually) is that glides should be permitted, but be non-clustering.

What I mean by "non-clustering" is that clusters of the form /Cg/ should be forbidden. In other words, the occurrance of Cg means a syllable break must occur between the C and g.

This breaks words such as "guaspi" and "tuitsku", and even cmevla such as "tuitr" and "nitcion".

For cmevla, the problem is not so dramatic, as we can just break up the gV into ghV, getting "tu'itr" and "nitci'on", or we can displace the glide by inserting another vowel, yielding "tuuitr" and "nitciion" (I address those specific forms below).

For zi'evla/fu'ivla, the issue is trickier as "gu'aspi" is no longer a fu'ivla. I suspect that some/many such fu'ivla will become so-called tcizbaga-form words: they will become fu'ivla masquerading as lujvo. That is another debate to be had, however. I propose correcting these words, which begin with with Cg, more robustly so that the result is still in fu'ivla form.

Furthermore, I propose restricting valid pronunciations of the 'u' in 'uV' to only be the approximant /w/. This solves the problem with the string "tuuitsku": it would therefore need to be interpreted "tu uitsku". Disyllabic realizations of the diphthongs would be forbidden.

As for the case as hand which sparked this discussion, namely the experimental cmavo "jie'e'e", it would be forbidden as it would contain a cluster involving a glide.

This solution also acts to increase consistency in the morphology between zi'evla, cmevla, and lujvo.

Also, since this proposal effectively considers /j/ and /w/ as consonants, I think I should clarify that I would be opposed to considering words such as "uitki" to be gismu, simply on the basis that expanding the gismu space should be done with more care. We may wish to consider them gismu at a later time, but that would require changing words such as "uitki" that do not deserve to be gismu. (I'm not specifically saying uitki is undeserving of a gismu. That's a separate debate, unrelated to the one at hand.) For now they should still be considered zi'evla/fu'ivla.

Besides breaking certain fu'ivla and cmevla, neither of which is core to the language like the gismu or cmavo, both of which can be fixed a posteriori, what issues does this solution raise?


On Sunday, 19 October 2014 20:19:33 UTC-4, guskant wrote:

coi ro me byfy

peg morphology allows cmavo beginning with "consonant glide":

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+PEG+Morphology+Algorithm
cmavo-form <- !h !cluster onset (nucleus h)* (!stressed nucleus / nucleus !cluster) / y+ / digit

onset <-  h / consonant? glide / initial

while CLL3.4 disallows it:
"the ten following ones [diphtongs with on-glide, i.e. beginning with i or u] are used only as stand-alone words and in Lojbanized names and borrowings."

Which is official now? La jbovlaste allows it based on peg morphology, and la gleki and I don't agree to the new rule. Concretely, an experimental cmavo "jie'e'e" is now discussed:
http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/comments.html?valsi=27527;natlangword=0;commentid=0;definition=0

If this new rule is official, CLL3.4 must be modified.

mi'e la guskant mu'o

[John Cowan]

Jorge Llambías scripsit:

> To me allowing "iibroda" while rejecting "iibro da" doesn't make a lot of
> sense. It shouldn't be a matter of word class, we either allow the syllable
> "ii" or we don't. Also, if "ii" is an attitudinal, "ii'a" could be one as
> well.

I agree that neither "iibroda" nor "iibro da" makes sense. I continue
to believe that ".ii" and ".uu" should be treated as anomalous cmavo
(in the same way that "zkzkzkkzkzt" is an anomalous cmevla), and
that "ii" and "uu" should be disallowed otherwise.

> If the words "ii" and "uu" are to be treated as complete anomalies, then
> the camxes morphology may need to be rethought. It might then make sense to
> allow syllables without onsets, treat ia, ie, io, iu as bisyllabic, and
> allow ae, ao, ea, eo, eu, oa, oe, ou as well.

That's backward toward Loglan. We introduced /h/ precisely to escape from
all that.

--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org

Híggledy-pìggledy / XML programmers
Try to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes;
Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is
Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Jacob Errington <nict...@gmail.com> wrote:

My stance on this issue, which I believe is a decent compromise between the different issues raised in this thread (which I will not take the time to respond to individually) is that glides should be permitted, but be non-clustering.

What I mean by "non-clustering" is that clusters of the form /Cg/ should be forbidden. In other words, the occurrance of Cg means a syllable break must occur between the C and g.

The only thing with that is that it gives strings that look like they might be words but are not, such as "sepia" or "akua", unless Cg is considered a consonant cluster as required by brivla. If not, "sepia" would be phonotactically fine but morphologically unanalyzable. We already have some such things (namely slinku'i, isloated CCV rafsi, and a few things involving "y") but it's not nice. 

 

Also, since this proposal effectively considers /j/ and /w/ as consonants, I think I should clarify that I would be opposed to considering words such as "uitki" to be gismu, simply on the basis that expanding the gismu space should be done with more care. We may wish to consider them gismu at a later time, but that would require changing words such as "uitki" that do not deserve to be gismu. (I'm not specifically saying uitki is undeserving of a gismu. That's a separate debate, unrelated to the one at hand.) For now they should still be considered zi'evla/fu'ivla.

camxes considers them fu'ivla, which means that "brauitki" is another fu'ivla and not a lujvo. The "barda zei uitki" lujvo being "bardyuitki". 

[Mike S.]

On Friday, December 19, 2014 8:53:25 PM UTC-5, John Cowan wrote:

mai...@gmail.com scripsit:

> This is bad for /u/, because fricativizing the /u/-glide will make  
> it sound much like /v/.  Not many natural languages have a /w/-/v/  
> distinction to begin with, and the needless presence of /uu/ in the
> language makes that distinction tougher.                            

The reason /wu/ works well in English is that for the last sixty years
/u/ has been moving forward in all or most accents, whereas /w/ has
remained fully back.  Consequently, even the semivowel pronunciation of
/w/ won't blend into the following /u/.

You're right, and it's easy to verify when I try to form a glide directly from my /u/.  My /u/ is still nearer to [u] than to [y], but it's definitely not cardinal.  Some time ago I encountered analyses of English vowels in which /i/ and /u/ were represented as just two more diphthongs "iy" and "uw" (i.e. lax vowels + glides [Ij] & [Uw]).  This is probably the general reason why words like "yeast" work, and why /u/ is drifting frontward.  That suggests that Lojban /ii/ and /uu/ might work if the second vowels could be lax, but lax vowels are probably just as problematic as fricative-bordering /i/ and /u/.  We're agreed that the best thing is to rule against /ii/ and /uu/ anywhere outside of the two aforementioned cmavo.

Another possibility is that the anomalous /ii/ and /uu/ words are optionally pronounced as two glides separated by a brief schwa, effectively as */iyi/ and */uyu/.  This optional pronunciation might be preferred by some speakers, and should be made available IMHO.

On Saturday, December 20, 2014 10:40:03 AM UTC-5, xorxes wrote:

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:13 PM, <mai...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, December 19, 2014 4:22:22 PM UTC-5, xorxes wrote:

"lei", "le,ii" and "le,ii,ii" contrast in number of syllables. 

Then the situation is better than what I described.  But the distinction between "lei" and "le,ii" is still gratuitous IMHO.  Wouldn't it be better to allow these two to be variants of {lei}?

Well, it depends on how much we're willing to reform.

Five out of eleven so far have voted to strike {.nitcion.}, {.buenosaires.} and {.xuan.} from the language, which is at least as radical a reform as anything else that has been suggested, I'd say.
 
 

My assumption is that Lojban needs to distinguish between the four forms "le'i", "le .i", "le ii" and "lei". We have six candidate pronunciations: /lehi/, /le?i/, /le?ji/, /leji/, /lei/, /lej/.

Obviously /lehi/ -> "le'i", /le?i/ -> "le .i" and /lej/ -> "lei". 

That leaves three pronunciations from which to choose for "le ii", and for me the best choice is /leji/ because /le?ji/ is way too close to /le?i/, closer than /leji/ is to /lej/, due to syllable count.

I would leave /le?ji/ and /lei/ as dispreferred pronunciations, the first one for "le ii" and the second one for "lei".

Now, if "ii" was not a Lojban word, things would be different, and we could give /lej/, /lei/ and /leji/ all to "lei", and /le?i/ and /le?ji/ to "le .i"   but I'm working under the assumption that "ii" is a Lojban word and needs to be accomodated. 

mu'o mi'e xorxes

I agree with John Cowan's points -- to me it's questionable whether Lojban can preserve self-segregation while allowing initial glides without the glottal stop in fluent speech, given such possible sequences like /le ia/ and /lei ia/.  Maybe it can, so long as we forbid CGV in all non-cmevla (which I think is a good idea anyway).  But that seems to me to be a separate issue from forbidding /ii/ and /uu/ outside the two exceptions, and from the idea of preserving {.nitcion.} while allowing it to be pronounced either ['ni.tSjon] or ['ni.tSi.jon], which is the main idea that I was trying to suggest.

mi'e .maik. mu'o

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Can such a morphology be imagined (without too much damage to existing lujvo and cmavo but ignoring possible damage to fu'ivla) that {'} in cmavo can be pronounced as {i}?

E.g. {.i'a} could be also pronounced as {.iia} as opposed to {.i.ia}.

The reason of asking this is that some people are complaining at the high level of fricatives, namely, glottal and velar ones.