Re: JBO: Re: lojban dialectology

["Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>]

>Date:         Thu, 14 Dec 1995 09:48:36 GMT
>From: Don Wiggins <dwiggins%BFSEC.BT.CO.UK@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>

>> i la ~mark zvati ma i jibri my fa le nu zgana la'e di'u

>.i.uanaisai .i la'o zy. ~mark zy. ki'a

mi'e mark. .i mi se casnu .ia .iji'a mi ja'a zgana

I won't wrestle with Lojban for this; I'm out of practice...

Indeed, I *did* notice "*bebylan" and thought about commenting on it.  But
I wasn't positive if I'd be in the right this time.  I remembered how words
like "mlat" had been made permissible cmene since the "la" was preceded by
a consonant and thus could not be the start of a new word, since the
consonant couldn't fall off.  And the same may obtain here, since the "la"
here is preceded by "y" which normally cannot be the end of a word unless
it's followed by a pause (as with consonants).  So the "beby" can't fall
off of "?bebylan", so I thought maybe it was permissible, considering CyC
to be a consonant cluster for this purpose.

What's the real answer?

'Course, in Hebrew, it's "baVEL."

~mark