Return-Path: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@vms.dc.LSOFT.COM Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id CAA27868 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 1996 02:37:34 +0200 Message-Id: <199601190037.CAA27868@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 2AFA6C7E ; Fri, 19 Jan 1996 1:37:33 +0100 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) To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Cc: Don Wiggins Content-Length: 712 Lines: 20 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.