From lojban+bncCMqBsa7nERCvmJzzBBoECWzmaA@googlegroups.com Tue Sep 06 23:16:27 2011 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R1BQu-0005gd-1E; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 23:16:26 -0700 Received: by fxd2 with SMTP id 2sf293283fxd.16 for ; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 23:16:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=gi9jq8vH6WEC79/LR8J4l8nP8D6qtxfhXxE+LN1vcF0=; b=x4TyXJdgweiHYynd9OfepaXF/m+Q7Os8qfRL1bdi/BYozT83p83uuXKUIRDWIgYqal 2iMgVP/oVOTUQfjIcMuBwT79mrMwsiKa8MBMdygnCgJL3MP24ELWVn6ZhGTYfgodYnIH cPCRvkquO68YzXR14J6V7BN3I3o9SfxNX/pZw= Received: by 10.223.14.88 with SMTP id f24mr974007faa.14.1315376175438; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 23:16:15 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.131.67 with SMTP id w3ls1383983bks.2.gmail; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 23:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.10.66 with SMTP id o2mr1160551bko.12.1315376174300; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 23:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.10.66 with SMTP id o2mr1160550bko.12.1315376174275; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 23:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f43.google.com (mail-fx0-f43.google.com [209.85.161.43]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r28si2118775fag.3.2011.09.06.23.16.14 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 06 Sep 2011 23:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of oges007@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.43; Received: by mail-fx0-f43.google.com with SMTP id 17so446348fxg.16 for ; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 23:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.21.150 with SMTP id j22mr1780433fab.98.1315376174134; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 23:16:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.102.130 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 23:15:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Ross Ogilvie Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 16:15:44 +1000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] tosmabru test To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: oges007@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of oges007@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.43 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=oges007@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001517475e689af8a004ac53e100 --001517475e689af8a004ac53e100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The issue is that there is no whitespace in speech. So the rule for breakin= g up words has work for spoken lojban (hence the remark about how the stressing changes things). Whitespace in written lojban only serves to infe= r stress (at least formally). Ross On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Remo Dentato wrote: > 2011/9/6 Jorge Llamb=EDas : > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Remo Dentato wrote= : > >> > >> Let's generalize the question, I'm bad at examples :) > >> > >> "do the tosmabru test apply to any (apparent) 'word' that could, > >> instead, be broken in a cmavo+brivla"? > > > > Yes, anything that can be broken into cmavo+brivla is indeed a > > cmavo+brivla. "lospageti" (with no stress on "lo"!) is the same as "lo > > spageti". > > I find this reasonable. Thanks > > > (If you do stress "lo" however, you end up with three words "lospa ge > > ti", where "lospa" is an undefined gismu.) > > I understand this (as the tosmabru test) is needed to ensure > uniqueness of word breakdown even when all spaces are removed. > > I must confess I do not understand why this is so important, it seems > to me that not using spaces (and pauses) as a mechanism to break words > creates more difficulties without bringing any benefit. > > To be clear, I'm not advocating any change! I fully accept things as > they are defined. Just would like to understand better the benefits of > considering {to smabru} and {tosmabru} the same thing. > > remod > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. > > --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den. --001517475e689af8a004ac53e100 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The issue is that there is no whitespace in speech. So the rule for breakin= g up words has work for spoken lojban (hence the remark about how the stres= sing changes things). Whitespace in written lojban only serves to infer str= ess (at least formally).

Ross

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:09 PM, = Remo Dentato <rd= entato@gmail.com> wrote:
2011/9/6 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjlla= mbias@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Remo Dentato <rdentato@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Let's generalize the question, I'm bad at examples :)
>>
>> "do the tosmabru test apply to any (apparent) 'word' = that could,
>> instead, be broken in a cmavo+brivla"?
>
> Yes, anything that can be broken into cmavo+brivla is indeed a
> cmavo+brivla. "lospageti" (with no stress on "lo"!= ) is the same as "lo
> spageti".

I find this reasonable. Thanks

> (If you do stress "lo" however, you end up with three words = "lospa ge
> ti", where "lospa" is an undefined gismu.)

I understand this (as the tosmabru test) is needed to ensure
uniqueness of word breakdown even when all spaces are removed.

I must confess I do not understand why this is so important, it seems
to me that not using spaces (and pauses) as a mechanism to break words
creates more difficulties without bringing any benefit.

To be clear, I'm not advocating any change! I fully accept things as they are defined. Just would like to understand better the benefits of
considering {to smabru} and {tosmabru} the same thing.

remod

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--001517475e689af8a004ac53e100--