Re: TECH: SE rafsi omitted in lujvo (was Re: dikyjvo, too, bites the dust

[Mr Andrew Rosta <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

Nick says:
> rafsi is there. Thus le'avla must have the same place structure as
> selyle'avla, if they are indeed the same word, rather than le'avla meaning
> something else, eg. the word you say in order to borrow a cup of sugar.

But "se lehavla" and "se selylehavla" mean the same, right? And if one
wanted to lujvoize these, the lujvo would have to be "selselylehavla"?
(Tho I prefer fukpi zei valsi anyway.)

> I must admit I can see no reason why morphology rules should not permit
> forms like *{kosyne'otau} or *{kosne'ortau} alongside {kosne'otau}. No ambigui
 ty
> results; the plurality of forms is already endemic to Lojban, and since
> "tosmabru"-type tests are often hard to perform on the fly, I scarcely think
> erring on the side of caution in such coinings should be penalised by well-
> formedness rejection. If these encroach into le'avla space, so much the better
 :
> le'avla space should be more distinctive than it currently is (we should
> emphasise the su'oci consonant crunch) --- I think it lets in too many words.
> Admittedly I don't hold much trust in the idea of level IV le'avla.

I second this. My instinct is to stick glue consonants in for both
euphony & safety. Indeed, I hadn't realized I had been transgressing
in inserting this excess glue.

----
And