From bpfk-list+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCB-6HmBBoEEureSQ@googlegroups.com Wed Oct 27 12:29:20 2010 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PBBgT-0008IB-WE; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:29:20 -0700 Received: by wwb34 with SMTP id 34sf568849wwb.16 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:29:11 -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: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; bh=AvgjyDYYtDMg80GwPE6pLmejv4GkQc4gUWO4X66QQVY=; b=cNV2d5Bm3ASmANEWrH7JACwVDRdaXhx6zJsW3psVvGyvKzngh0jRjT0X7oum0R5nVf 07LSR/rthHm+PnCCZeJAIQJI/+3JRbF7vwaob1N3v8+QUcSCx0M0v8Yiya6eyKtY7Hug ZmM7lb14bVHEenqdQ6vDgnrt+dLfXJ2Hx2a9U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version: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; b=0gQr/VZMDix+YDdyGBJpkR1IZ725/osjg/oBqN7mElF33lmnrTf+2HTJBe94UdcAKa Yxow7K/HMgoTyoUCP9T+91zm1JAxOCWqIg0B5wCaSCk8B5um1I/pQzDdyp2V34X0UFz2 NP0S31WrEu5dSF69SdWbDQjoEYVy7raEmLGno= Received: by 10.216.10.65 with SMTP id 43mr213166weu.22.1288207745240; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:29:05 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.208.4 with SMTP id p4ls509258weo.2.p; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.36.21 with SMTP id v21mr509749wea.4.1288207744523; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.36.21 with SMTP id v21mr509748wea.4.1288207744481; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f171.google.com (mail-wy0-f171.google.com [74.125.82.171]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id a52si39918wer.8.2010.10.27.12.29.03; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.171; Received: by mail-wy0-f171.google.com with SMTP id 39so1139091wyb.2 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:29:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.72.149 with SMTP id m21mr9632417wbj.186.1288207743283; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.32.140 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:29:03 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: [bpfk] CLL: The lujvo making algorithm 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 74.125.82.171 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 The lujvo making algorithm contains this sentence: "It is illegal to add a hyphen at a place that is not required by this algorithm." I propose that that sentence be removed. The PEG grammar allows a -y- hyphen after any CVC- rafsi, and it allows an -r- hyphen after any CVV- rafsi, no matter whether it is required or not. This was discussed a while ago and we decided it was ok to allow them even when not required. Unfortunately I have no idea how or where to search for that discussion. The argument was that, for example, if you are used to the form "cakyrespa", there is no harm in allowing the form "cakyrespyzda" as well even though "cakrespyzda" would also be fine. Similarly, if you are used to "li'erla'i", there should be no problem in allowing "tolyli'erla'i" along with "tolyli'ela'i". You should be able to build on existing lujvo without being forced to remove hyphens that become unnecessary in the longer form. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.