Message-Id: <m0t6QwN-0000ZOC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Fri, 20 Oct 1995 14:04:54 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: lujvo-making
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2211
Lines: 45

> CVV rafsi ONLY add the r (or n or l) when they are in initial position,
> and there is one exception in that a CVVCCV form 2-part lujvo (e.g.
> fu'ivla) does not need the hyphen.  The rule is that if a hyphen is not
> needed, it is forbidden.

I think I understand now. My confusion came from a misunderstanding of
the stress rule from the beginning. It should be emphasized that not
only must the penultimate syllable be stressed, but no other syllable
may be stressed, at least in some cases. This is not a problem for two
or three syllable words, but for longer ones it can be difficult in
practice. Fortunatley, very long lujvo are rare.

> >I'm not sure whether using the rafsi "por" instead of "poi" is anygood,
> >because {nacporBA'u} could be {na cpo-r-ba'u}, or couldn't it?  The "r"
> >is not necessary there, so I'm not sure if {nacporba'u} would break or
> >not.
> Because lujvo-space takes precedence over fu'ivla-space, this cannot
> fall apart:  "cporba'u". would be a fu'ivla.

So the rule is that "cporba'u" cannot be a fu'ivla, right?

> But we have to be strict
> about hyphenation rules specifically to prevent things like this.  If
> you could arbitrarily add an 'r' hyphen after any CVV or CCV non-final
> rafsi, and a 'y' between any CVC and the following C initial rafsi, then
> you would expand the potential lujvo space greatly at the expense of
> fu'ivla space, but you also would make more situations where you would
> HAVE to put a hyphen for fear of the word breaking up.

I thought that the 'y' between consonants was always allowed, even
between a pair within the same rafsi, because some people might have
problems with some consonant clusters. Was this ever so, or did I just
dream that up?

> Note that these rules must be completely blind as to whether the rafsi
> or gismu actually have meaning in Lojban - the morphology is independent
> of, and completely preceding, the association of the lexicon to
> semantics.

Have the rules for fu'ivla ever been worked out? I thought it was
just "anything that's left" after all cmavo, gismu, lujvo and names have
been removed, but that is not enough, because that would allow "cporba'u",
which cannot be any kind of word.

Jorge