Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c01::229 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400c:c01::229;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20140419024554.302387e6@aol.com>
References: <e1c31b14-d5f9-4ac7-bcd0-b0bb65db62d4@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2ejxUzh9GcYHJWBdUOZWKx8b+++t_ERZvVRwQqamFF_9Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140419024554.302387e6@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 23:17:38 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2doXFcSaS_p+G3rfp2Y3k7-sbSSLE7Jjds+N7aPKPbdwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] jbovlaste, vlatai, camxes and morphology
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11362b18c536bd04f75bde84
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--001a11362b18c536bd04f75bde84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Wuzzy <almikes@aol.com> wrote:

> Am Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:08:36 -0300
> schrieb Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>
> > The issues with cmevla and fu'ivla have to do with which syllables are
> > considered acceptable in Lojban words. CLL is not completely clear on
> > that, and that's why different parsers went with different things.
> Wow. If this is true, then things are seriously messed up in Lojban. The
> morphology is a core part of the language. And that part is not well
> defined? I never really noticed that but I fear this is actually true.
> Seriously, this sucks. I think a revision of the CLL is badly
> needed.
>

You probably never noticed because it affects very marginal words. The core
part of the morphology is well defined.

If there is no formalization, parsers are doomed to give different
> or nonsensical results. If parsers are doomed to give such
> results, the issues for jbovlaste can not be fixed. But then this means
> the bug does neither lie in jbovlaste, nor in vlatai nor in camxes. The
> bug appears to be actually in Lojban itself. Seriously, I hate to type
> this, but: This is messed up. :-(


Personally, I think other parts of the language are probably more messed up
and require more attention, but yes, an official definition of the
morphology would be nice and relatively easy to do.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--001a11362b18c536bd04f75bde84
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Wuzzy <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a hre=
f=3D"mailto:almikes@aol.com" target=3D"_blank">almikes@aol.com</a>&gt;</spa=
n> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Am Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:08:36 -0300<br>
schrieb Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jjllambias@gmail.com">jjl=
lambias@gmail.com</a>&gt;:<br>
<div class=3D""><br>
&gt; The issues with cmevla and fu&#39;ivla have to do with which syllables=
 are<br>
&gt; considered acceptable in Lojban words. CLL is not completely clear on<=
br>
&gt; that, and that&#39;s why different parsers went with different things.=
<br>
</div>Wow. If this is true, then things are seriously messed up in Lojban. =
The<br>
morphology is a core part of the language. And that part is not well<br>
defined? I never really noticed that but I fear this is actually true.<br>
Seriously, this sucks. I think a revision of the CLL is badly<br>
needed.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You probably never noticed beca=
use it affects very marginal words. The core part of the morphology is well=
 defined.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

If there is no formalization, parsers are doomed to give different<br>
or nonsensical results. If parsers are doomed to give such<br>
results, the issues for jbovlaste can not be fixed. But then this means<br>
the bug does neither lie in jbovlaste, nor in vlatai nor in camxes. The<br>
bug appears to be actually in Lojban itself. Seriously, I hate to type<br>
this, but: This is messed up. :-(</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Personall=
y, I think other parts of the language are probably more messed up and requ=
ire more attention, but yes, an official definition of the morphology would=
 be nice and relatively easy to do.</div>
<div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes</div><div><br></div></div></di=
v></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--001a11362b18c536bd04f75bde84--