From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Feb 20 14:02:23 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 10553 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2007 21:55:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.33) by m46.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Feb 2007 21:55:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail2.sea5.speakeasy.net) (69.17.117.4) by mta7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Feb 2007 21:55:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 18104 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2007 21:55:47 -0000 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) (envelope-sender ) by mail2.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 20 Feb 2007 21:55:47 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HJcxc-0007AQ-BU for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:55:45 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HJcxB-00078m-O5; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:55:23 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:53:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HJcvX-00078X-Ua for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:53:36 -0800 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.186]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HJcvS-00078P-Mc for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:53:35 -0800 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c31so22780nfb for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:53:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=UQOy0FTlkQ9Lim7xKBKm8rM4bcELq1RTDO48ZOgGts/BrCGCR0kiB2xDSsXL5vQ2hqtL3Dluf9sssganu9RyTg1oiodp24jqqY2NOKQo6RU3ElGVAFdiHnkq6FE+KaFMpezve967R1LdaDQz+GRbEP9shNdoZSkpON1+b8hbYDI= Received: by 10.49.41.12 with SMTP id t12mr6793nfj.1172008408823; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:53:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.49.9.8 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:53:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560702201353r2c161813pacb95207416be530@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:53:28 -0300 In-Reply-To: <3ccac5f10702200925r5672d9f7j23346557ff50888d@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3ccac5f10702200925r5672d9f7j23346557ff50888d@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Score-Int: -24 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-archive-position: 13588 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Score-Int: -24 X-Spam-Bar: -- To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 69.17.117.4 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" Reply-To: jjllambias@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: morphology paper announced X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=UBFEEcnrPzIhdJi6eJ545q8m3VZkE3CvG-9TpO6uOsSCgF3aZQ X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 28032 On 2/20/07, Cyril Slobin wrote: > > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Morphology+analysis+programs+comparasion&bl > > Comments are solicited. coi kir Have you looked at ? << 2.2.2 Leading cmavo There is no common agreement about breaking a potential brivla into leading cmavo and the rest. Published word breaking algorithm gives a set of patterns for breaking words, but it is unclear whether the rest of the word after cutting off a leading cmavo must be a valid word by itself. >> Yes, the rest must be one or more words, otherwise you cannot separate a cmavo. << Brkwords program treats this as the fact of being a valid word for the resting part is irrelevant: for example, the word "iglu" breaks into cmavo "i" plus resting "glu" and therefore is not a valid fu'ivla (the fact that "glu" is not a valid word by itself is irrelevant). On the other hand, vlatai insists that "iglu" is valid word, *because* "glu" is not a valid word and therefore "iglu" is not breakable. The Vim syntax plugin follows the first approach (brkwords compatible) by default, but can be coerced into vlatai-compatible mode by setting a flag variable. >> {.iglu} is no different from {ciblu}. If you break it into {.i} + {glu} then you would also break {ciblu} into {ci} + {blu}. << 2.2.3 Obscure case Vlatai does not recognize as brivla some words that I failed to find any reason not to be a valid brivla. The shortest possible example is "adjdga". If someone knows why this is not a brivla, mail me please! For the Vim syntax plugin this word is a valid brivla. >> The PEG morphology rejects it because "jdg" is not a valid initial cluster. It only accepts non-initial clusters that consist of one consonant plus a valid initial cluster. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.