From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Feb 21 09:31:09 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:31:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HJvIn-0000EJ-6n for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:30:49 -0800 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.234]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HJvIf-0000EB-3N for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:30:48 -0800 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i30so1173927wxd for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:30:39 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=n63t1+j+ttVl1EABd9GZCIb+BI/D8iMzalxzomJb9efK8pAGaKJoabLhOKIWQDwiLIwiS10snK8LPwA3+0ZydSw+RnezDmUb/K1bosZUBkTQaauRmoFQcyH7y46cFpY9XXnEBeC3W9D9gvaXlP4NjL+or9IjkbHpFIV6RbcMKC4= Received: by 10.90.30.20 with SMTP id d20mr10348684agd.1172079039475; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:30:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.90.31.6 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:30:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3ccac5f10702210930j585f1ef8ydd0b7076cd9c4ba9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:30:39 +0300 From: "Cyril Slobin" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: morphology paper announced In-Reply-To: <925d17560702201353r2c161813pacb95207416be530@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3ccac5f10702200925r5672d9f7j23346557ff50888d@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560702201353r2c161813pacb95207416be530@mail.gmail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0d0f80d6784ee5e4 X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Score-Int: -25 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-archive-position: 13593 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: slobin@ice.ru Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list coi xorxes >> words, but it is unclear whether the rest of the word after cutting >> off a leading cmavo must be a valid word by itself. > Yes, the rest must be one or more words, otherwise you cannot separate > a cmavo. ma? ca'e xusra la'e di'u Brkwords.txt text doesn't claim this. It says something like "if a piece of text is beginning with a vowel followed by a valid initial consonant cluster, then cut off this vowel as a cmavo". It does NOT say "check if the rest after cutting off a vowel is a valid word by itself, and if it is not, undo cutting and try to parse the whole piece as a single word". So I don't understand why your and vlatai point of view is valid. > {.iglu} is no different from {ciblu}. If you break it into {.i} > + {glu} then you would also break {ciblu} into {ci} + {blu}. No, it IS different. {iglu} is handled by rule 2. C. 4) a) 3] of the brkwords algorithm, while {ciblu} is handled by rule 2. C. 4) b) 5] a] of that algorithm. If you want another (lengthier) example handled by the same rule with {iglu}, consider {adjgadja}. >> Vlatai does not recognize as brivla some words that I failed to find >> any reason not to be a valid brivla. The shortest possible example is >> "adjdga". If someone knows why this is not a brivla, mail me please! > The PEG morphology rejects it because "jdg" is not a valid initial > cluster. It only accepts non-initial clusters that consist of one > consonant plus a valid initial cluster. As far as I have understood PEG morphology papers during the last few hours, it drastically limits the repertoire of valid syllables - from potentially infinite to a finite one. Neither CLL no brkwords forbids consonant clusters (and even initial consonant clusters) of any length. There are only two potentially infinite initial cluster forms: (d[jz])+ and (t[cs])+, but who have decided to forbid them? And one last question: back in nineties John Cowan suggests that two or more vowels not forming diphthong are forbidden in brivla (although they are OK in cmene). PEG morphology treats them as separate syllables. This one I opine is a good idea and going to correct my syntax plugin in this direction. But do I understand the intent correctly? Upd: discussion between me and JC is at: http://www.lojban.org/en/lists/lojban-list/thrd49.html#15581 and the JC final answer is at: http://www.lojban.org/en/lists/lojban-list/msg15643.html It was not nineties in a strict sense, it was 2000. -- Cyril Slobin `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, `it means just what I choose it to mean' To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.