From xeubie@hotmail.com Mon May 10 12:56:16 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: xeubie@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 27629 invoked from network); 10 May 2004 19:56:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m22.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 May 2004 19:56:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n11.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.66) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 May 2004 19:56:16 -0000 Received: from [66.218.66.114] by n11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 10 May 2004 19:54:55 -0000 Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 19:54:55 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20040510000710.GA20485@mit.edu> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 754 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 66.218.66.66 From: "la_okus" X-Originating-IP: 69.162.47.2 Subject: "Mooooos" (Re: my new idea for onomato's) (rspeer) X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=170795535 X-Yahoo-Profile: la_okus X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22219 Rob Speer wrote: > > Would this be parsable? sa'ei mumu? > > Not easily. This makes the language not at all context-free. What do you mean by "context-free"? > And to parse such a phrase, you have to maintain an > arbirtrarily large stack. Again, I'm not sure what a this means (forgive me). I figured all the computer would have to do is search the text letter-by-letter that comes after sa'ei, until it finds a repeat. > Besides, how is doubling the word any better than adding a consonant to > it? The only advantage seems to be cuteness. This, I can answer. Onomatopoeia have the unique requirement of being flexible; they are supposed to mimic sounds. I just can't bare to teach my child that a cow goes "muuuus"... okus