History: if the rule about no la or lai or doi in cmene didn't exist

Source of version: 1 (current)

From another page: (I personally believe we should have abolished the nonsense about no la/lai/doi in cmene and just required a mandatory pause before as well as after in all settings.) --mi'e ((Mark Shoulson|mark.)) ---- I agree. Could we add a rule that says that names that begin in a glottal stop CAN contain la/lai/doi? --((And)) *That wouldn't help. To take an example from the list, {la .dalais. .lamas.} could still be interpreted as {la da lai s. la mas.} because "s" and "mas" would not be required to begin with a glottal stop. --((rab.spir)) *Yeah. That wouldn't be enough for the (putative) word-parser. It has to know where cmene begin. It knows they end at __C.__, and searches back to find the beginning, which is either a pause or a la/lai/doi, whichever comes first. If we allow this, we'd force it always to search back to the pause, which, in the case of an "old-style" cmene, could be back at the start of the jufra. That is, ''.i mi'o tavla la lojban.'' could just as easily be one biiig cmene, ''.imi'otavlalalojban.'' The only way is to require that __all__ cmene be preceded by a pause, __everywhere__. Me, I don't think that's such a hardship. I'd just train myself that the word ''la'' was pronounced with a glottal stop at the end (like the Klingon word __la'__/commander), and so it would always have a pause afterwards. Likewise ''lai'' and ''doi''. ((hardliners|Hardliner)) though I be, I get the feeling that usage will probably bring this to pass. I've been involved in Lojban for a long time now, and I __still__ see Lojbanists as experienced as I accidentally sticking illegal syllables into their cmene. The la/lai/doi rule probably will simply not survive. Hardliners might try to keep the "pause-before" rule to compensate, but that may be hard to instill. ''--mi'e mark.'' **I don't think it matters if it's hard to instil. No human brain will actually speak and hear according to the morphophonological rules, and the sounds people actually make don't matter all that much. Getting from actual speech sounds to a phonological representation is a pattern-matching exercise more suited to a neural net sort of thingo than to your ordinary linear algorithm. ((And)) **Probably true. In writing, even those who write their dots often forget to write them after ''mi'e'' for example. --mi'e ((xorxes)) ***True and guilty as charged, but I don't think that's very damning. Just because a dot isn't written doesn't mean it isn't pronounced. I usually remember that a pause is required after ''mi'e'' even if I don't write it. Dots are optional reminders, not mandatory parts of the orthography, IMO. ''--mi'e mark'' **.i mi'o tavla la lojban doesn't make a whole lot of sense - did you mean .i mi'o tavla fo la lojban or .i mi'o tavla fi la lojban, by any chance? ***''fi la lojban.'' I misremembered the structure of ''tavla.'' I think I was thinking of ''casnu.'' * I also agree. I've been experimentally putting pauses after ''la'', etc., and I find that it's easier to remember to pause after the word when I do. -- Adam ---- We've made some progress in that la/lai/doi are now allowed after a consonant. How about allowing them when the syllable is accented? If the la/lai/doi was really supposed to be a cmavo, it would either be unaccented or followed by a stop. --((rab.spir)) ''No it wouldn't; cmene aren't brivla, so that rule doesn't apply.''