From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Nov 26 15:13:06 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:13:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1L5TZC-0005aT-SN for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:13:06 -0800 Received: from mx.freeshell.org ([192.94.73.19] helo=sdf.lonestar.org ident=root) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1L5TYw-0005Zz-NN for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:13:06 -0800 Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (IDENT:jwodder@sverige.freeshell.org [192.94.73.4]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.2/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mAQNCbBd019624 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:12:37 GMT Received: (from jwodder@localhost) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.2/8.12.8/Submit) id mAQNCbI2006586 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:12:37 GMT Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:12:37 +0000 From: Minimiscience To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Superfluous {tosmabru} check? Message-ID: <20081126231234.GA21340@sdf.lonestar.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Organization: SDF Public Access UNIX System User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 15073 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: minimiscience@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list coi logji jbopre I was just reading the {lujvo} creation algorithm in the Lojban Reference Grammar, attempting to convert it to Perl, when I noticed something that seemed to be unnecessary. CLL chapter 4, section 11, item 5 says: Test all forms with one or more initial CVC-form rafsi --- with the pattern ``CVC ... CVC + X'' --- for ``tosmabru failure''. X must either be a CVCCV long rafsi that happens to have a permissible initial pair as the consonant cluster, or is ***something which has caused a ``y''-hyphen to be installed between the previous CVC and itself by one of the above rules.*** Note the highlighted part. The only two reasons that a 'y' hyphen would have been inserted was if (a) it came after a four-letter {rafsi}, in which case it would not be at the end of a sequence of CVC {rafsi}, or (b) it came in the middle of an impermissible consonant pair. However, an impermissible consonant pair clearly cannot be a valid initial consonant pair, and so the "joint" at that location would always cause no further hyphens in the word to be needed. Item 5a even explicitly states that the last joint is the last consonant of the CVC sequence plus the first consonant of the 'X' part, "*ignoring any ``y''-hyphen before the X*", and so it can never be true in such a {lujvo} that all joints are initial consonant pairs. Thus, the {tosmabru} test will always indicate that a {lujvo} of the form "(CVC)* + 'y' + X" does not need any further hyphens, and so applying the test to such a {lujvo} in the first place is completely pointless. Is this true, or am I missing something very basic? la'o gy. Minimiscience .gy. -- do ganai ka'e tcidu dei gi djuno lo dukse 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.