From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199412201654.AA05515@access2.digex.net>
Subject: Re: fyfyfyfy
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List)
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 11:54:56 -0500 (EST)
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group)
In-Reply-To: <199412200920.AA14766@access1.digex.net> from "Logical Language Group" at Dec 20, 94 04:20:55 am
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length:       1380
Status: RO

la lojbab. cusku di'e

> I tried this on the parser, and suspect a problem.
> It does not break up fyfyfyfy before the selbri, nor implies that ti takes
> it as a sumti.  When followed by a separate fy "fyfyfyfy fy klama", it blows
> up.  But "fy fy fy fy klama" parses fine, and with a single sumti, unless
> split up by BOI.

There are two problems here: one is with the current machine parser's
feeble morphology algorithm, one with what I said.

The parser distinguishes brivla from compound cmavo by looking for
consonant clusters, defined as two successive consonants optionally
separated by "y".  By that standard, the word "fyfyfyfy" appears to have
a y-hyphenated consonant cluster in the first 3 letters.  Thus it is
lexed as a brivla, with resulting problems.  IMAO, this is no worse that
the treatment of "secmene" as a brivla rather than as "se cmene",
or the fact that the lexer breaks up stuff within "zoi" quotes as if it
were Lojban.  Eventually, there will be a proper morphological preprocessor
that handles all cases.

However, I was wrong to say that "fy fy fy fy" was four sumti; it is a
single sumti, because the lerfu-word pro-sumti actually consist of a string
of lerfu words.  To get four instances of the "f" pro-sumti, we need
"fyboi fyboi fyboi fy[boi]".

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.