From bpfk-list+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDi7KHmBBoESGX3tQ@googlegroups.com Wed Oct 27 11:59:02 2010 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PBBD5-0006u9-2j; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:59:01 -0700 Received: by wyb38 with SMTP id 38sf539713wyb.16 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:58:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=35Kj7pw+dFXu78oU48s1yIVWP0V8VXJmdGYjGve+V4c=; b=S9PeO8XQwZ9dB1rD548m06sGNKuutGxDJVNeQzIEUZnxLNZlSfW5DTPpLVJzJm5GUY U83NmauXxacuzq14oZAN1AJXynEw5/zD+klKBsyNtC5E1TSzNUkIr/pT/nQYPTuPLr8u Gkrl9+qV2F9cnQqVvM4w/JG8n2bVUHR+J349M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=kQ8vXXkGL3UxuNSkijiYzSc9XrOjdYiH7NTCTgkfGROh+nYMiTV5gfJ+kmk+FA1hNr sQ5Hh16rhg3YjOXiYN2fvwNZr2Y9JWhmlpAdVla2aLLapUkwNXRy2kidGlv4rulIPhCQ Tn+c+cgeasV+WuTFzmfQrMbhSDo+F6HFuKLFI= Received: by 10.216.237.34 with SMTP id x34mr1465472weq.10.1288205922862; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:58:42 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.227.131.162 with SMTP id x34ls425267wbs.0.p; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:58:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.195.3 with SMTP id ea3mr462264wbb.23.1288205921515; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:58:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.195.3 with SMTP id ea3mr462262wbb.23.1288205921458; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:58:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f46.google.com (mail-ww0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id x80si31959weq.4.2010.10.27.11.58.40; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.46; Received: by mail-ww0-f46.google.com with SMTP id 20so1192167wwd.15 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:58:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.136.72 with SMTP id q8mr6618176wbt.52.1288205920150; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.32.140 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:58:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20101027174136.GD5643@mercury.ccil.org> References: <201010260117.28780.phma@phma.optus.nu> <201010260927.37640.phma@phma.optus.nu> <201010270951.35522.phma@phma.optus.nu> <20101027174136.GD5643@mercury.ccil.org> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:58:40 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] type-3 fu'ivla with different kinds of rafsi From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.46 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 2:41 PM, John Cowan wrote: > Pierre Abbat scripsit: > >> I think that anything that *looks* like a type-3 should *be* a type-3, > > I can live with that if you confine the definition of "type 3" to 4-lette= r > rafsi, because crunchy consonant clusters CCRC are fairly rare in natlang= s. 4-letter type-3 can also be just CRC, if the four letter rafsi is CCVC. The way I see it, the distinguishing feature of a type-3 is the awful -CR- syllable, it doesn't matter much if the classifier is CVCC-R-, CCVC-R-, or CVC-R-. > Adding another rule to see whether a proposed type-4 collides with a type= -3 > that has a 3-letter rafsi strikes me as excessively complicated; type-4 > fu'ivla are hard enough to generate and validate as it is. The current version of the PEG morphology doesn't bother to distinguish fu'ivla types, but a previous version did. It's not that hard to add a rule to separate them, if we wanted to do it. "fu'ivla" already are basically "whatever is left" anyway, so selecting three specific shapes out (namely "CVCCRC...V", "CCVCRC...V", and "CVCRC...V") is really simple. >> BTW, I'd say "sparganio". > > I think letting CiV and CuV into fu'ivla is a bad idea. =A0Part of the > reason we banned them in rafsi (and consequently in lujvo) was to prevent > them from disappearing into mere palatalization and labialization of > the preceding C. I wish we could come to a consensus on this. On the one hand, I tend to agree with John in principle, on the other hand, these forms are already quite widespread in practice, and nobody but John (and, depending on the day, me) seems to care (and then why couldn't "a mere palatalization and labializaton" not be an allowed realization of them). mu'o mi'e xorxes --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= BPFK" group. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googleg= roups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-l= ist?hl=3Den.