From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Thu Jan 13 08:41:58 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 66028 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2005 16:41:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Jan 2005 16:41:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Jan 2005 16:41:57 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1Cp82l-0002QF-Ht for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:41:55 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Cp823-0002PI-62; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:41:11 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:41:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from web41907.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.158]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Cp81n-0002Ov-AT for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:40:55 -0800 Received: (qmail 42928 invoked by uid 60001); 13 Jan 2005 16:40:24 -0000 Message-ID: <20050113164024.42926.qmail@web41907.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41907.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:40:24 PST Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:40:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20050113155111.GA31005@fysh.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 9252 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Subject: [lojban] Re: pronunciation with cmavo and brivla X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23638 --- Zefram wrote: > Jorge Llambías wrote: > >Maybe something like {RE. SPAti} would have been a better example. > >It is not clear whether {RESPAti} should break as {re spati} > >or as {respa ti}, as in both cases the brivla has a stressed > >penultimate syllable. > > It *is* clear, because /RESPA/ is not a valid pronunciation of {respa}. > All non-penultimate syllables in a brivla must be unstressed. Right. But RE followed without pause by a brivla is also not a valid pronunciation of {re}. So {RESPAti} is not interpretable as a valid string. In order to interpret you have to either allow some stressed syllable in a brivla other than the penultimate, or allow a stressed cmavo in front of a brivla. > The ambiguity occurs with, for example, /LOkreBUKpu/, which could be > divided into words as either {lo krebukpu} or {lokre bukpu}. Right, that would be ambiguous if it weren't for the cmavo stress rule. The cmavo stress rule is more strict than it needs to be: it doesn't allow final stress in a cmavo that is followed without an intervening pause by a brivla. There are many cases where the rule could be relaxed: RENANmu RESPAti REfu'Ivla REmlonGEna would all still be unambiguous, not just two-syllable brivla. The actual parsers that implement the morphology tend to be more permissive with stress rules, but unfortunately not always in the same direction. We don't have a standard for permissiveness yet. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250