From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:52:55 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sun, 1 Aug 1993 01:33:57 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7403; Sun, 01 Aug 93 01:32:42 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 4905; Sun, 01 Aug 93 01:34:21 EDT Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1993 01:31:06 EDT Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: TECH: SE rafsi omitted in lujvo (was Re: dikyjvo, too, bites the dust) X-To: nsn@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Ukn Aug 1 01:33:58 1993 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab@GREBYN.COM Message-ID: Nora says that there actually would be resolution problems if we allowed hyphens optionally where they are currently forbidden. One reason that comes to mind is the 2nd case of tosmabru failure which derives from the fact of the hyphen being present: CVCCVCyCCV has the CV at the beginning fall off when the CC cluster in positions 3 and 4 is a permissible initial. Thus, if you have added the hyphen when not needed, you could force a tosmabru failiure that is not necessary. I don't know that permitting extra hyphenation in the first cluster, or in all clusters if present in the first cluster would be a problem, but it seems like it wouldn't allow enough improvement to be worthwhile. What is clear is that you cannot optionally include the hyphen in any condition, since the hyphen can cause problems that would otherwise not be present in some cases. I'm not sure I see the difference between your two cases of omission of "se". I am sure that in some cases there is indeed an error being made, but I am also sure that in some there is an intentional abbrviation. I think it worthwhile to correct these for now, but we should note when they have occurred so we can see if there is a pattern that would allow some of them to remain, especially when the extra term causes one or two extra hyphens, etc., and the "erroneous term" has no obvious other meaning, or even non- obvious one. I am equally sure that some of the exampkes of the first case are indeed malrarna usages rather than abbreviations, and they should also be reviewed. I just know that "le'avla" is one where we have made such a review and decided that the shortest is preferable, even if less aesthetic by another principle. I do agree that the place structure of an abbreviated lujvo should be that of the unabbreviated form, and this should be true even of the final-position cases that are retained as abbrevaitions, if any. Indeed, I would say that the usefulness of the resulting place structure might be a factor in deciding whether to permit a final position abbreviation, since in many cases you'd ned up with the same place structure but a different order, if you took the 'abbrevaiation' literally. In other words, keep a list of these that you want to change - we'll probably go along with you, but I think the examples should be looked at by more people if only for educational value. lojbab