From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Feb 21 12:05:37 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:05:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HJxiD-0003YX-F0 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:05:13 -0800 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.190]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HJxi7-0003YN-Ei for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:05:13 -0800 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c31so573999nfb for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:05:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=r8Yv1h+UHKvHEbwA98UvKE/3GcKmNSpRWGcqa7eXAjh67PzOq5ToIen3z2gN/VachKsf6qwJEAqE+54HSCIec9cgcysdWFGeoxM+wROFqdkE/401tRtiyOljKcJd9CoPw1l+/UKH62YgjXMSJJqkBvbZmCJk2eOv5a3dlGYlWaE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=UBHsbea9qjPQBEkacT96blvqKr9JKoUfNpAc15d2jSCn26g/QbYcebO4sXz6s4NSGQ2iVyETfEhAyA9+bU2rxJA5Fng6MXVp5H+azKsEK6C1HVadeP0FuDEYScQBfDGjLmeI5leshyG/RDDCNs7QyD4aexEyklA6c5jMUwLllmQ= Received: by 10.49.36.6 with SMTP id o6mr2162677nfj.1172088305170; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:05:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.49.9.8 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:05:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560702211205o1c221f0aua725d71b27f1eaa4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:05:05 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: morphology paper announced In-Reply-To: <3ccac5f10702210930j585f1ef8ydd0b7076cd9c4ba9@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> <3ccac5f10702210930j585f1ef8ydd0b7076cd9c4ba9@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Score-Int: -24 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-archive-position: 13594 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 2/21/07, Cyril Slobin wrote: > {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}. Section 2.C of brkwords.txt begins: "Now we have a piece which we are sure contains a brivla (a gismu, a lujvo or a le'avla)." So you can't really invoke section 2.C to say that {.iglu} is not valid. If you reach that stage of the algorithm, the string must contain a brivla. I'm not sure about the official status of brkword.txt anyway. Regardless of the small print, the idea of fu'ivla is that any string that follows the phonotactics of brivla and cannot be confused with cmavo and/or lujvo is a valid fu'ivla form. If the brkwords algorithm makes {.iglu} invalid, then there is a problem with the algorithm, not with {.iglu}, which cannot break into cmavo and/or lujvo. > 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. CLL contradicts itself in some points. For example, in chapter 3 section 6, it says: "In Lojban, doubled consonants are excluded altogether, and clusters are limited to two or three members, except in Lojbanized names." Since there is as yet no complete official specification of the morphology, I adopted one that made sense to me, but it would be good to reach a consensus at some point on an official prescription. I don't think it makes sense to allow "djbgdbgj" while disallowing "kv" for example, so I adopted a simple rule for which consonant clusters to allow. Similarly for vowel clusters. > There are only two potentially infinite initial cluster forms: (d[jz])+ > and (t[cs])+, but who have decided to forbid them? I did, on the grounds that it makes no sense to allow inintial "tctctctc" while disallowing "sb". I think disallowing the affricates from participating in further clusters makes sense. > 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? PEG currently does not give any special phonotactics to cmevla, other than the final consonant. A syllable consists of an onset, a nucleus and a (possibly zero) coda. The coda can only be a single consonant. The nucleus is one vowel or one of the fouur diphthongs ai, au, ei, oi. The onset may be a single consonant (including . and '), a valid initial cluster, or a semi-consonantal i or u. Since the onset cannot be empty, this limits the vowel clusters allowed. In particular, things like "aa" or "ae" are then disallowed. I do think we need to settle on some official rules though. mu'o mi'e xorxes 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.