From lojban+bncCN673cmqFBDqiZ3zBBoENK51Ig@googlegroups.com Wed Sep 07 03:18:29 2011 Received: from mail-qy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R1FD7-0004tF-UE; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 03:18:29 -0700 Received: by qyk33 with SMTP id 33sf5973281qyk.16 for ; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 03:18:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-ct-class:x-ct-score:x-ct-refid:x-ct-spam :x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:organization :user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-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=GKpwJMaKGywSnVDXkHi+dw3sqi+BIV9fH4CzdPqIPcA=; b=GQVRuT3GoJUdSnLuyGplErKREy022Knidz0NwJxDjNy/QNpgm9GawF0SS5FOa5rzVu 6VlQnqTA9T7CNMDJRqufEM5D8XGRI3wgG/vn8UeWYOWlKl319FfX9uueDfrhl3ZwB2E9 2d1aUzl6EZ6a3It0qbG3Y+Ii9c8hPwKFos7nI= Received: by 10.229.24.76 with SMTP id u12mr395235qcb.38.1315390698074; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 03:18:18 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.207.1 with SMTP id fw1ls2736611qab.4.gmail; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 03:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.208.67 with SMTP id gb3mr4299207qab.35.1315390697303; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 03:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.208.67 with SMTP id gb3mr4299206qab.35.1315390697293; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 03:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmfepo202.cox.net (eastrmfepo202.cox.net [68.230.241.217]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id m27si8796460qcz.2.2011.09.07.03.18.16; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 03:18:16 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.217 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.217; Received: from eastrmimpo03.cox.net ([68.1.16.126]) by eastrmfepo202.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <20110907101815.MNOD32466.eastrmfepo202.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 06:18:15 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.187.237.100]) by eastrmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id VmJ91h00G2AfMYu02mJ98Q; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 06:18:15 -0400 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020203.4E6744E7.008F,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=vWikg9PSJH5eWPsfInVwkFcjRsjcbcFZH9bro1lAIgk= c=1 sm=1 a=dYDkaTZZu5wA:10 a=xmHE3fpoGJwA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:17 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=QABVgJKDKBd29fPfzOcA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=dxBpO5_FDU0A:10 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4E6744CE.5000203@lojban.org> Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 06:17:50 -0400 From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] tosmabru test References: In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.217 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org 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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Remo Dentato wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Luke Bergen wrote: > >>I believe it would fail even before then due to {oa} not being a valid >>vowel combination > > > 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"? Reviewing what others have written, I will say that the answer is "yes and no", with the technical purist answer being "no". The tosmabru test itself is DEFINED to apply only to lujvo of certain word-forms, and says that lujvo whose CV at the beginning might fall off leading to ambiguity are forbidden. BUT, a possibly fu'ivla which could have a cmavo at the beginning fall off is also forbidden. The test to determine this has not traditionally been called the "tosmabru test", and it doesn't follow the exact algorithm described for the lujvo tosmabru test - but that is history, and not "generalized rule". The test applied to fu'ivla was traditionally called the "slinku'i" test, wherein attaching a cmavo to the front causes the word to break up. But that is not the only test. fu'ivla are at the bottom of the pecking order among Lojban word-forms, and ANYTHING about a possible fu'ivla that could lead to ambiguous resolution as something else makes it invalid. There are a number of possible ways a word could fall apart, and we made no attempt to concoct a specific test for all of them, and indeed decided at the time that the question of defining all necessary tests algorithmically was too hard to be practical (at the time), and thus came up with the rafsi-fu'ivla proposal that ensures that any fu'ivla created does not violate any tests, intending that NO ONE would create type-4 fu'ivla until we could come up with such an algorithm. So there is no specific name for the test that says that "paigli'u" is invalid, because it could break up into "pai gli'u". I would be opposed to calling it a "tosmabru test" because it in fact is NOT decided by the exact tosmabru test algorithm, but by the generalized rule regulating fu'ivla. At one time Pierre and my wife Nora were working on a generalized word-breakdown algorithm, but the effort stalled out, and I don't know if anyone has worked on such a thing in the last couple of years. Nora's last effort *may* have been satisfactory, but we never found a practical way to test the algorithm, and I think there were open issues left undecided. There is no name for the generalized algorithm (which would break down any text string marked for stress uniquely. -- Bob LeChevalier lojbab@lojban.org www.lojban.org President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc. -- 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=en.