From cowan Sat Mar 6 22:57:45 2010 Subject: Re: buffer vowel To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) From: cowan Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 09:37:58 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199511121421.JAA16150@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Nov 12, 95 02:14:52 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1044 Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Mon Nov 13 09:37:58 1995 X-From-Space-Address: cowan Message-ID: 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" (Don't ask me what they mean, but they are both valid lujvo.) > 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. > Or do as Chris suggests, and scrap buffering. I'm beginning to think that this is the best alternative available. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.