From pycyn@aol.com Fri Nov 30 14:18:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 30 Nov 2001 22:18:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 73926 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2001 22:18:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Nov 2001 22:18:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m10.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.165) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2001 22:18:34 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id r.12c.87271f1 (2519) for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:18:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <12c.87271f1.29395fb2@aol.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:18:26 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] morphology To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_12c.87271f1.29395fb2_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 12414 --part1_12c.87271f1.29395fb2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/30/2001 4:02:13 PM Central Standard Time, thinkit8@lycos.com writes: > is it true that the lojban morphology is exaustively proven? that > is, can it be shown that when following the morphology rules, audio > visual isomorphism is assured? i was under the impression that it > wasn't, and this was what was holding up cultural fu'ivla. > > furthurmore, can it be proven within reasonable limits, such as not > allowing fu'ivla? > I'm not sure I understand the question, which seems off thinkit's usual points. The audiovisual isomorphism is trivially assured regardless of what happens with fu'ivla. Questions about about unique word segmentation or morpheme segmentation are more likely to be problems with any complex word forms. And checking out the possible ways that things can go wrong is probably what is holding up (if anything still is) approval of a variety of fu'ivla forms. --part1_12c.87271f1.29395fb2_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/30/2001 4:02:13 PM Central Standard Time, thinkit8@lycos.com writes:


is it true that the lojban morphology is exaustively proven?  that
is, can it be shown that when following the morphology rules, audio
visual isomorphism is assured?  i was under the impression that it
wasn't, and this was what was holding up cultural fu'ivla.

furthurmore, can it be proven within reasonable limits, such as not
allowing fu'ivla?


I'm not sure I understand the question, which seems off thinkit's usual points.  The audiovisual isomorphism is trivially assured regardless of what happens with fu'ivla. Questions about about unique word segmentation or morpheme segmentation are more likely to be problems with any complex word forms. And checking out the possible ways that things can go wrong is probably what is holding up (if anything still is) approval of a variety of fu'ivla forms. --part1_12c.87271f1.29395fb2_boundary--