Received: from vms.dc.lsoft.com ([205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id QAA07018 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 1996 16:54:55 -0500 Message-Id: <199601202154.QAA07018@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by vms.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 3F8225D6 ; Thu, 18 Jan 1996 21:41:54 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 22:36:43 -0300 Reply-To: Paulo Barreto Sender: Lojban list From: Paulo Barreto Subject: TECH: tosmabru test rationale (PU: TECH QUERY: variant fu'ivla) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu X-cc: Don Wiggins To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 712 X-From-Space-Date: Sun Jan 21 23:11:31 1996 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU cu'u la dn. joi mi >>the proposed form cannot be confused because of the >>anti-tosmabru hyphen > >.i tosmabru ki'a .i .uanaisai .i lo mabru cu danlu .i zo tos. rafsi ma That's not Lojban. It's an instance of the flaw Nora LeChevalier found in Loglan, motivating the hyphen rule in section 11 of the morphology paper. I'm not surprised at your question. In fact, I'm glad about that (.ui). Without the hyphen rule, "tosmabru" would be ambiguously analyzed into either "to sma,bru" or "tos,mabru" (the correct form, if there existed a "tos" rafsi at all, would be "tosymabru"). co'o mi'e paulos. Paulo S.L.M. Barreto -- Software Analyst *** PGP public key available *** e'osai ko sarji la lojban.