Re: TECH: more on morphology problem - some opionions

[Iain Alexander <I.Alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK>]

la kau,n. cusku di'e

> la lojbab. cusku di'e

> > 4. Cowan will investagate, and may propose some norms for final clusters,
> > which would set a non-mandatory standard for use in names.

> This is a wholly separate issue, and one which needn't be solved now.
> Names are still just ...C<pause>, with no impermissible medial consonant
> pairs.

I used to think so, and then:

la kolin. cusku di'e

> .uu zoi gy. Bradford gy.

> I just noticed I've been using a lojbanization of Bradford that is not
> only not a good rendering ("bradfyd" would be better) but is also
> invalid phonologically.

> Henceforward, I will repair this by going to a really local
> pronunciation:

>         bratfyd

cu'u mi
> > I'm curious to know what's phonologically invalid about
> > "*bradfrd".  It doesn't break any rule I can remember coming
> > across.


> "df" is not a permissible medial (voiced-unvoiced).

So which is it, guys?

mi'e .i,n.