From lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Tue Oct 15 23:48:07 1996 Received: from punt-4.mail.demon.net by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA16363 ; Tue, 15 Oct 96 23:48:00 BST Received: from punt-4.mail.demon.net by mailstore for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk id 845367930:08726:4; Tue, 15 Oct 96 09:25:30 BST Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu ([128.228.1.2]) by punt-4.mail.demon.net id aa08524; 15 Oct 96 9:24 BST Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 1534; Tue, 15 Oct 96 04:24:53 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 6000; Tue, 15 Oct 96 04:24:36 EDT Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 10:22:45 +0200 Reply-To: "R.M. Uittenbogaard" Sender: Lojban list From: "R.M. Uittenbogaard" Subject: Re: lujvo morphology To: Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN Message-ID: <845367898.8524.0@cunyvm.cuny.edu> Status: R Well, I am happy to see that some interesting reactions were given to my last mail. Trevor C. Hill (TH) wrote: TH> I am currently trying to learn lojban ... TH> ... my friend (who is also learning it) ... How lucky you are to have such a friend! My friends always look strangely to me when I talk about Lojban. TH> If it were decided that rafsi would automatically bind to the rafsi or TH> gismu coming immediately after, and that lujvo must end in a gismu rather The problem is actually that if no precautions are taken, it would not be clear (in certain cases) whether a -CVV- string in speech ought to be interpreted as a rafsi or a cmavo. Logical Language Group (LLG) wrote: LLG> An r/n hypen is ONLY inserted after an initial CVV rafsi, and is not LLG> permitted anywhere else. (It is also not permitted in a CVVCCV lujvo, the LLG> only CVV-initial lujvo that does not fall apart without it.) In short, LLG> if the r/n is either required or forbidden - never optional. The same LLG> is true of 'y' hyphens. -y- hyphens are *not* optional? Hmmm... That rule missed me. I guess that means that the lujvo "bav+lacpu" must contain a hyphen (although the medial consonant pair is permissible), because otherwise it would fall apart into "ba vlacpu" (which is "ba vla+cpu"). LLG> The tanru would be pronounced MLI-toi-NAN-du, whereas the lujvo is LLG> pronounced mli-toi-NAN-du. It is of course important to not put secondary LLG> stress on "mli" in the lujvo, relative to "toi". You are right, although I am afraid this difference is a rather small one. LLG> It is a perfectly acceptable dialect in the language to use just the full LLG> gismu and 4-letter+y rafsi, to make all lujvo. These words are called the LLG> "fully-expanded" form and this techniques is used in much conversation for LLG> making nonce lujvo, since few of us know more than a minimal number of LLG> short rafsi. RU > Probably, the lujvo morphology rules are all settled and fixed at this RU > stage in development, and my opinion will not make much of a change. LLG> This is of course true. But as a Lojban user, you can come close to your LLG> proposal by using only expanded forms. Yes, but many people will still use short rafsi in written text, which requires people who do not know those rafsi to look them up every time. LLG> I understand. However, throughout the history of the project, there has LLG> been a fear that excessively long lujvo would be so unaesthetically LLG> pleasing to people actually using the language (as opposed to those talking LLG> about using it) that some sort of haphazard abbreviation or shortening LLG> would take place if a planned approach were not allowed for. ... LLG> Therefore, good design in to make sure that Zipf's Law is satisfied LLG> before we start, insofar as is possible. You have certainly got a good point there. I didn't think of that. It was a good idea to ensure a systematic way of handling this before an unsystematic shortening would be made up by Lojban-speakers. It is important that the language be used as precisely as possible. On the other hand, other aspects of Lojban will certainly be used differently by different speakers, which will have different opinions on how to express certain things, e.g. I have seen (and can think of) the following constructions: - sei la rik. cusku se'u mi cliva - la rik. cusku lu mi cliva li'u - la rik. lu mi cliva li'u - cu'u la rik. lu mi cliva li'u Aren't some of these expressions ungrammatical? Still, they are being used. Chris Bogart (CB) wrote: CB> I personally have only learned a few of the rafsi, So did I. CB> and I generally CB> make lujvo with the 4-letter forms and -y-. Not because I oppose CB> rafsi but just because it's too much to memorize. I pick up more CB> of them as I go along. Right. That is actually my major problem with rafsi. CB> This is the sort of thing that usage is likely to decide regardless CB> of LLG's wishes -- I bet rafsi that are not used productively or CB> I bet's no problem with rafsi like "-gau" for CB> gasnu, "-pre" for prenu, etc. They're short and convenient and CB> better than attatching the 4/5 letter form. You are right about that. I prefer saying "ma'oste" instead of "cmavyliste"! Greetings, Rene Uittenbogaard e'u doi lobypli ko na pilno lei nandu rafsi i ko pilno lei mutce sampu rafsi po'o (Yes, I know lobypli is a short-form lujvo, but I guess it is well-known enough, that's whyI use it).