From sentto-44114-17295-1038632987-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Fri Nov 29 21:10:24 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 29 Nov 2002 21:10:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.79]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18HztR-0008RP-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 21:10:17 -0800 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-17295-1038632987-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.95] by n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Nov 2002 05:09:47 -0000 X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 30 Nov 2002 05:09:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 21461 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2002 05:09:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2002 05:09:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao04.cox.net) (68.1.17.241) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2002 05:09:46 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20021130050946.OCKU1248.lakemtao04.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 00:09:46 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129223811.03a31ec0@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <0211292053270Q.02982@neofelis> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129201628.031287f0@pop.east.cox.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021129125713.00abb680@pop.east.cox.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20021129201628.031287f0@pop.east.cox.net> From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 00:01:54 -0500 Subject: [lojban] Re: Fu'ivla diphthongs was: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-archive-position: 2782 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list At 08:53 PM 11/29/02 -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote: >On Friday 29 November 2002 20:18, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > > At 01:41 PM 11/29/02 -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote: > > >what about {cipnrxakuila}? > > > > I dunno? What about it? If someone has said it is invalid, what was their > > reason? > >No one said it's invalid that I know of, but it contains a diphthong that >does not appear in lujvo. > >According to chapter 3: > >The first four diphthongs above (``ai'', ``ei'', ``oi'', and ``au'', the ones >with off-glides) are freely used in most types of Lojban words; the ten >following ones are used only as stand-alone words and in Lojbanized names and >borrowings; and the last two (``iy'' and ``uy'') are used only in Lojbanized >names. > >Thus a fu'ivla can contain {ua} or {io} or {ui}. Yes. But that does not mean that they can be used in unlimited ways. First I will quote on the alternate orthography as an argument: >On Friday 29 November 2002 13:01, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > > At 08:20 AM 11/29/02 -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote: > > >I don't use the TLI alternate orthography, so when I write {srutio}, I > > > don't mean {sruti'o}. > > > > But if srutio is a valid word, then it has to be usable by those who DO you > > the alternate orthography. The book actually dealt with this: >· “i'a” through “i'u” and “u'a” through “u'u” are changed to “ia” >through “iu” and “ua” through “uu” in lujvo and cmavo other than >attitudinals, but become “i,a” through “i,u” and “u,a” through “u,u” in >names, fu'ivla, and attitudinal cmavo. sruti'o is a lujvo in the alternate orthography become srutio. Thus we cannot allow srutio in fu'ivla space. ckanku'a would fail slinkui so it is not a valid fu'ivla, but ckankru'a is a valid fu'ivla. In the alternate orthography, it would have to be written with commas ckankru,a, so ckankrua would be a distinct word. srutio might be a valid fu'ivla, if not for the alternate orthography. However I personally would reject it as looking too much like a lujvo (or a typo for a lujvo). I still consider fu'ivla by intention to be second-class words in Lojban. I want them to be clearly seen to look different, and that word form doesn't. Furthermore, the difficulty of performing the slinkui test means that we shouldn't be trying to push the limits on what fu'ivla are allowed on that basis. From CLL >All fu'ivla: >::1) must contain a consonant cluster in the first five letters of the >word; if this consonant cluster is at the beginning, it must either be a >permissible initial consonant pair, or a longer cluster such that each >pair of adjacent consonants in the cluster is a permissible initial >consonant pair: “spraile” is acceptable, but not “ktraile” or “trkaile”; >2) must end in one or more vowels; >:3) must not be gismu or lujvo, or any combination of cmavo, gismu, >and lujvo; furthermore, a fu'ivla with a CV cmavo joined to the front of >it must not have the form of a lujvo (the so-called “slinku'i test”, not >discussed further in this book); >:“”:4) cannot contain “y”, although they may contain syllabic >pronunciations of Lojban consonants; >:5) like other brivla, are stressed on the penultimate syllable. >:Note that consonant triples or larger clusters that are not at the >beginning of a fu'ivla can be quite flexible, as long as all consonant >pairs are permissible. There is no need to restrict fu'ivla clusters to >permissible initial pairs except at the beginning. (Note that this explicitly says that clusters larger than 3 are permitted inside fu'ivla, to answer another post of yours. This does contradict statements on pg 36 and 37 that says that clusters cannot occur in numbers larger than 3. It is clear that we did not carefully deal with fu'ivla when Cowan wrote up the phonology rules. THIS is the sort of thing that can be properly addressed by the byfy.) Rule 3 says that they cannot be lujvo or have the form of a lujvo. fu'ivla word space is defined as that brivla space which is left over when we remove the forms reserved for other words individually or in any legitimate combination in the speech stream. >So {srutio} (a fu'ivla, >discarded in favor of {strutione} for "ostrich") is distinct from {sruti'o} >(a lujvo: "penumbra", maybe?), and {ckankua} (a fu'ivla: "skunk") is distinct >from {ckanku'a} (a valsrslinku'i). > >As to the TLI alternate orthography, {i'o} in a fu'ivla is written as {i,o}, >but in a lujvo {i'o} is written as {io}. Yes, and sruti'o is a lujvo, so how is it written? > > I don't pretend to be more a master of fu'ivla than others. So far as I > > know, however, the rafsi fu'ivla like that one all work. > >By work, do you mean that you can make words like {cipnrxakuilykanla}? I meant "Type 3 fu'ivla", not "rafsi fu'ivla". When we wrote up the word resolution algorithm (which hadn't been formally proven, and that is the only reason it did not make it into the refgrammar, but it was intended that it end up in the baseline documentation), we tried allowing "iy" as a hyphen for fu'ivla to be made into rafsi, but it simply made the algorithm too complicated, so we now use zei: cipnrxakuila zei kanla is a "lujvo" in principle (it is not a tanru in that it has a single specific meaning). The difference between zei and iy was insignificant in speech - they are both one syllable and no pause is required. In writing you may need to write the space, but no one has tested to find out. The bottom line in cmene and fu'ivla is that we chose NOT to try to maximize the use of the available space (which might have allowed ala'um and srutio) because it is more important to minimize words being added in error that could cause problems later. It is easier to make a blanket rule forbidding "la" than to come up with a SIMPLE set of rules that allows someone to know when it is or is not allowed. It is easier to tell people to make Type 3 fu'ivla than to come up with valid Type 4s in the absence of a properly defined test to verify words (the word resolution algorthm was not a valid test, since it would only detect a slinkui violation if the word in question was preceded by a cmavo in the text. We need two things. A valid word-resolution algorithm that can be proven (and which is verified to fit what was published in the refgrammar, since we put it aside long before the refgrammar was published), and a word tester that will classify all words allowing for ALL context situations (thereby always detecting slinkui violations and alternate orthography conflicts). If we have those, then it becomes useful to talk about how closely to allow fu'ivla to encroach on the other word spaces. http://www.lojban.org/files/software/BRKWORDS.TXT which as you can see was INTENDED to be part of the baseline, needs to be completed to fully discuss this matter. (the new policy does not define it to be part of the baseline, unless the byfy chooses to adopt something like this as a blanket resolution of the numerous glitches in the phonology/morphology section like the question of 4 or more consonants. But that requires that someone make it current and prove it. Anyone who wants to undertake this is welcome to it. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/