Message-Id: <m0tFRUD-0000ZTC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 14 Nov 1995 18:20:41 +0000
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: buffer vowel
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1540
Lines: 37

Djan:
> la .and. cusku di'e
> > I vote for buffer-hyphen equivalence.
> Unfortunately, it won't work in naive form; I found a counterexample:
> If the "y" is omissible from:
>        bastyrapli < "basti rapli" = "replace-repeat"
> then it becomes the different lujvo
>        bas-tra-pli < "basti tarti pilno" = "replace-behave-use"

Yes, that is a killer example.

> > As for the slinkui test, I don't see how it's relevant here.
> > Also, I've never understood the rationale for it. The tosmabru
> > test says if a string is potentially ambiguous between lujvo
> > and cmavo+lujvo, then the latter wins. The slinkui test says
> > if a string is potentially ambiguous between lujvo and cmavo
> > +lujvo, either lujvo is banned. I am confused.
> No, the slinku'i test says that if a string is potentially ambiguous
> between le'avla and cmavo+lujvo, the le'avla is banned.

Oh, right - of course. Except the ambiguity is cmavo+fuivla versus
lujvo - *{pa slinkui} vs {paslinkui}.

Incidentally, how come you still use "dikyjvo" and "le'avla", instead
of "jvajvo" and "fu'ivla"?

> > Or do as Chris suggests, and scrap buffering.
> I'm beginning to think that this is the best alternative available.

I think you're right. This is a great pity, as I'm dead dead fond of
buffer vowels. I'd still prefer to change things to solve the problem
and keep buffering, but it would probably involve changes noone would
wear. For example, I'd like to make /y/ [y] and the buffer vowel [@].
But no current lojban speaker would consent to this.

---
And