From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Aug 15 22:44:23 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1McYXX-0005ae-PY for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:44:23 -0700 Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.121]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1McYXU-0005a2-Vg for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:44:23 -0700 Received: from chausie ([71.75.215.96]) by cdptpa-omta02.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20090816054414661.XDXX8845@cdptpa-omta02.mail.rr.com> for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:44:14 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chausie (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED4A3CE7 for ; Sun, 16 Aug 2009 01:44:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Pierre Abbat To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: coi ro do Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 01:44:06 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) References: <4A868DBB.7050008@cosmicray.co.uk> <200908160023.40524.phma@phma.optus.nu> <5715b9300908152202jc8eff2fjd146e8956c626a39@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5715b9300908152202jc8eff2fjd146e8956c626a39@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200908160144.09917.phma@phma.optus.nu> X-archive-position: 2028 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: phma@phma.optus.nu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Sunday 16 August 2009 01:02:30 Luke Bergen wrote: > what's this about a revision of phonotactics and morphology? Have these > changed since the CLL? There's a proposal to switch from the LALR grammar to a PEG, and there are some points of morphology on which the CLL is inconsistent, confusing, or underspecified. Nothing is going to change with gismu or lujvo morphology (except possibly allowing "y" where it's not needed). Only some corner cases of fu'ivla and cmevla may be affected. Examples: * One word in the Book (i,iai,i,iai,ion) has a triphthong. There is no list of allowed triphthongs. If a triphthong is allowed to be the nucleus of a syllable in a lujvo, then "mliau" (meow) is one syllable, therefore invalid, and "amliau" is valid. If there are no triphthongs, then "mliau" is valid, and "amliau" breaks up. Either way, "mliaue" is valid. * The fu'irvlazba algorithm, applied to "jamo" with the three-letter rafsi, yields "lerndjamo", which is invalid. It has to be "lerldjamo". * The Book says that a cmevla can't contain "la", "lai", or "doi", unless preceded by a consonant. This doesn't make sense: "lai" contains "la", and "la'i" isn't mentioned. My amendment is that a cmevla can't contain "la", "lai", "la'i", or "doi" unless preceded by a consonant or followed by a vowel or apostrophe. This means "laus" and "ala'um" are both valid. The dot side throws out the rule entirely, and puts pauses before all cmevla. Enough of this! It's too much for the beginners' list. Pierre