From cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.bitnet!LOJBAN Fri Aug 28 03:28:51 1992 Return-Path: Date: Fri Aug 28 03:28:51 1992 Message-Id: <9208280109.AA20128@relay1.UU.NET> Reply-To: CJ FINE Sender: Lojban list From: CJ FINE Subject: Re: More text from the Bratfyd jbogirz X-To: shoulson@CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU X-Cc: Lojban list To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: ; from "Mark E. Shoulson" at Aug 25, 92 11:02 am Status: RO > > > Um, just one thing, Colin, before I start reading your text. While Lojban > is supposed to be self-segmenting and uniquely resolvable, such resolution > requires the stress, which is >not< represented by your method. na go'i I leave a space in two contexts: 1) An obligatory pause (which I also mark) 2) After every brivla (It's true that I did not say this). Since the purpose of da'amoi terbasna is to identify the end of every brivla, this rule is sufficient. It's safe > to string together cmavo as much as you like, but when you start throwing > brivla into the works, it gets messy. Consider the compound you wrote: > {tinoigligu'e}. This is actually ambiguous. You intend it to be {ti noi > gligu'e}, stressed as {ti noi gligU'e}. But note that the {noi} may *not* > have stress on it. You can't tell that from what you wrote, and watch what > happens if I read it with stress: {tiNOIgligu'e} -> {ti noigli gu'e}. So, following my rule, I would never write that thus - I would write "tinoigli gu'e". Incidentally, it seems to me that there is no necessity for number brivla (-MOI) to have da'amoi terbasna, since phonologically they are so'ocma - their syntactic status as brivla seems irrelevant to this question. pinka xu Colin