From rpc@digitalkingdom.org Sun Dec 09 15:37:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: richard@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_2); 9 Dec 2001 23:37:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 21951 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2001 23:37:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Dec 2001 23:37:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scrabble.freeuk.net) (212.126.144.6) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Dec 2001 23:37:28 -0000 Received: from du-009-0064.freeuk.com ([212.126.152.64] helo=rrbcurnow.freeuk.com) by scrabble.freeuk.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16DDVc-00024c-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 09 Dec 2001 23:37:25 +0000 Received: from richard by rrbcurnow.freeuk.com with local (Exim 2.02 #2) id 16DCvJ-0001rY-00; Sun, 9 Dec 2001 22:59:54 +0000 Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 22:59:53 +0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] le vlatai be lo cmene Message-ID: <20011209225953.A2854@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com References: <0112061642370I.18860@neofelis> <3C0FF067.3010904@reutershealth.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C0FF067.3010904@reutershealth.com>; from jcowan@reutershealth.com on Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 05:25:43PM -0500 X-Mailer: mutt/1.2i (Linux 2.0.36 i486) Sender: Richard Curnow From: Richard Curnow X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=85274821 X-Yahoo-Profile: richard_p_curnow X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 12566 On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 05:25:43PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > Pierre Abbat wrote: > > > I'm reading the Lessons and I saw a name {antonis.routc.}. This looks odd to > > me, as {ou} is not a valid diphthong. vlatai calls {routc} valid, but since > > {ou} is not a Lojban diphthong, it must be implicitly inserting a comma. > > > No two words differ solely because of the presence or absence of commas, > so "routc" and "ro,utc" are the same word. This 'ruling' was incorporated into the lexing engine of vlatai and jbofihe at the 0.38 release. > > > > > > I then tried {ryytc}, {raatc}, {ryitc}, and {riytc}. {ryytc} is rejected as > > "Bad cmene - doesn't break up", but {ry,ytc} is accepted. {ryitc} is rejected > > with or without the comma. What is going on? > I'm afraid I can't reproduce this with version 0.38. The message "bad cmene doesn't break up" is generated by words like {bylaplas}, which have the illegal 'la' inside, but couldn't break up in the normal way because the preceding {by} would then have to have a pause after it. The word(s) being tested do not have this form. > > Those look like bugs. > I've got vlatai to 'advise' on all the forms like this that I could think of. Here are its findings: raatc : cmene : raatc raetc : cmene : raetc raitc : cmene : raitc raotc : cmene : raotc rautc : cmene : rautc raytc : UNMATCHED : raytc reatc : cmene : reatc reetc : cmene : reetc reitc : cmene : reitc reotc : cmene : reotc reutc : cmene : reutc reytc : UNMATCHED : reytc riatc : cmene : riatc rietc : cmene : rietc riitc : cmene : riitc riotc : cmene : riotc riutc : cmene : riutc riytc : cmene : riytc roatc : cmene : roatc roetc : cmene : roetc roitc : cmene : roitc rootc : cmene : rootc routc : cmene : routc roytc : UNMATCHED : roytc ruatc : cmene : ruatc ruetc : cmene : ruetc ruitc : cmene : ruitc ruotc : cmene : ruotc ruutc : cmene : ruutc ruytc : cmene : ruytc ryatc : UNMATCHED : ryatc ryetc : UNMATCHED : ryetc ryitc : UNMATCHED : ryitc ryotc : UNMATCHED : ryotc ryutc : UNMATCHED : ryutc ryytc : cmene : ryytc ra,atc : cmene : ra,atc ra,etc : cmene : ra,etc ra,itc : cmene : ra,itc ra,otc : cmene : ra,otc ra,utc : cmene : ra,utc ra,ytc : UNMATCHED : ra,ytc re,atc : cmene : re,atc re,etc : cmene : re,etc re,itc : cmene : re,itc re,otc : cmene : re,otc re,utc : cmene : re,utc re,ytc : UNMATCHED : re,ytc ri,atc : cmene : ri,atc ri,etc : cmene : ri,etc ri,itc : cmene : ri,itc ri,otc : cmene : ri,otc ri,utc : cmene : ri,utc ri,ytc : cmene : ri,ytc ro,atc : cmene : ro,atc ro,etc : cmene : ro,etc ro,itc : cmene : ro,itc ro,otc : cmene : ro,otc ro,utc : cmene : ro,utc ro,ytc : UNMATCHED : ro,ytc ru,atc : cmene : ru,atc ru,etc : cmene : ru,etc ru,itc : cmene : ru,itc ru,otc : cmene : ru,otc ru,utc : cmene : ru,utc ru,ytc : cmene : ru,ytc ry,atc : UNMATCHED : ry,atc ry,etc : UNMATCHED : ry,etc ry,itc : UNMATCHED : ry,itc ry,otc : UNMATCHED : ry,otc ry,utc : UNMATCHED : ry,utc ry,ytc : cmene : ry,ytc ra'ytc : cmene : ra'ytc re'ytc : cmene : re'ytc ri'ytc : cmene : ri'ytc ro'ytc : cmene : ro'ytc ru'ytc : cmene : ru'ytc ry'ytc : cmene : ry'ytc ry'atc : cmene : ry'atc ry'etc : cmene : ry'etc ry'itc : cmene : ry'itc ry'otc : cmene : ry'otc ry'utc : cmene : ry'utc (The other 25 forms {[aeiou]'[aeiou]} with apostrophes in them will all be 'approved' as cmene and aren't interesting to show.) I think the 'special' cases above are that iy and uy are allowed in cmene, but other pairs involving {y} are not allowed. That was my reading of the book anyway. I think we established some time back that any cluster involving just a,e,i,o or u was allowed in cmene and fu'ivla (although for fu'ivla the consonant structure must not match that of a lujvo or gismu.) Are there any systematic faults in this analysis? If there are, please let me know! -- Richard. ---------------------------------+------------------------------------- Richard P. Curnow | C++: n., An octopus made by Weston-super-Mare, UK | nailing extra legs on a cat. http://www.rrbcurnow.freeuk.com/ |