From: Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.hn.org>
Organization: dis
To: bpfk-announce@lojban.org
Subject: [bpfk-announce] Re: Next Up: Morphology
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:53:01 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20050214220556.03a3c260@pop.east.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20050214220556.03a3c260@pop.east.cox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200502150553.01735.phma@phma.hn.org>
Sender: bpfk-announce-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: bpfk-announce-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: bpfk-announce@lojban.org
Content-Length: 4950

On Monday 14 February 2005 22:12, Nora LeChevalier wrote:
> Various comments in no particular order.
>
> If we vote in the Morphology Algorithm, we are agreeing to the setting of
> what the valid word-forms are.  It is obvious that fu'ivla forms and cmavo
> forms have changed, but nowhere is there a reasonbly concise statement of
> what the new forms are.
>
> The "algorithm" is program code.  One usually checks a program against the
> desired results to see if it works.  We have no statement of the desired
> results.  I can't read the code without more explanation.  For example : "&
> indicates that the element to the right must follow" [follow what?  it's at
> the beginning - example: BU <- &cmavo (b u ) &postword] "but the marked
> element itself" [the thing to the right of the &, I presume] "does not
> absorb anything" [what does this mean?].
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but have we just added things like "sia" /sya/ and
> "rua" /rwa/ to the CVV space?  In making Lojban, we made a deliberate
> decision to exclude these (which were present in Loglan) for 2
> reasons.  Some of them are too hard to say ("rui"), especially as a single
> syllable.  Some, like "sia", tend to degenerate into other sound sequences
> (as English "sion" endings are now pronounced "shun").
>
> What are the valid fu'ivla forms?  It looks to me like "jritata" is valid
> (initial cluster OK, passes slinku'i test, doesn't break up into gismu
> and/or rafsi).  So, given "All fu'ivla can be used as final
> rafsi",  "prijritata" is no longer a valid fu'ivla because it is
> "pri"+jritata", right?  Thus we can add to the "[to]slinku'i" test the
> "prijritata" test to eliminate invalid fu'ivla.  This seems too complex to
> me.

{jritata} is invalid because "jr" isn't a valid initial. {critata} is valid. 
{pricritata} is still a fu'ivla because "pri + critata" is {prinycritata}. 
Fu'ivla rafsi must be connected with "y" to adjacent rafsi.

My version of the algorithm (and I still haven't made a proper regression 
test) doesn't allow {critata} or {skalduna} to be used as a rafsi fu'ivla 
anywhere. As I understand xorxes' version, {critata} can be used only in 
final position and {skalduna} can be used only medially and finally, but I 
haven't examined it.

> Also, we need to revise "slinku'i" itself a bit if r-hyphens are allowed
> when not required.  We have a valid lujvo "li'erla'i" (li'e + r +
> la'i).  If we allow someone to add an affix on the front without removing
> the "r" ("tos + li'e + r + la'i), we then need to disallow a potential
> fu'ivla "sli'erla'i" (originally OK - good initial cluster, doesn't break
> down into rafsi and/or gismu, used to pass to+sli'erla'i "slinku'i" test
> but now will not).  Making fu'ivla is a mine-field.

Hmm...

> If "non-y cmavo can have non-final rafsi by adding 'y", then are we
> removing the restriction that there must be a consonant cluster in the
> first 5 [non-'-non-y] letters?  "oi'ycai'ylujvo".  How do they attach on
> the left if they're vowel-initial - eg: klama + o + sutra =
> klamy[what]sutra?

I think making rafsi from cmavo like this is crazy.

> "cmene can have inital rafsi by adding iy".  Can names have "iy"
> internally, or is that disallowed like la/lai/la'i/doi?  Must the name be
> entirely unstressed if it doesn't have the penultimate syllable?  I don't
> think it causes a problem, but I'm not yet sure.

This too is crazy. {uiliym} has "iy", and it has no consonant cluster, so 
{uiliymiytavla} is not a word and would parse wrong. Cmene lujvo aren't 
nearly common enough to make this rule for them; the only one that comes to 
mind is {ctelr zei xasybakni}, which could just as well be called {xasybakni 
la ctelr}.

> I notice there are 2 things that are being allowed to have rafsi by
> following them by 'y: cmavo and fu'ivla.  Does this cause a problem?  Take
> for example stura [gismu] + o'a [cmavo] + klama [gismu].  This would be,
> stura'o'a'yklama (note: here, I'm presuming that the vowel-initial cmavo
> will attach to the left using ', as vowel-initial fu'ivla do).  But, might
> "stura'o'a'yklama" instead break down as stura'o'a [fu'ivla] + klama?  Or
> is stura'o'a not a valid fu'ivla because it could break down into stura + '
> + o'a when in front of something else (oh boy - another test for
> fu'ivla)?  Which has precedence?

My head is spinning! Let's quit this nonsense. I'm still mourning the loss of 
my koala and dandelion. Two weeks isn't enough time; I think we should wait 
till March or April, when I should have enough time to work on valfendi. Both 
the PEG and valfendi should have the same set of valid words, so if a set of 
words can't be implemented in both methods easily, it's wrong. This doesn't 
mean that they'll accept the same set of speech streams; corner cases like 
{lekybumoi} can produce different output.

phma
-- 
S Fa1>+/- !TM Ng--- M-- K H T-- t? AT++ SY Te- SC- FO- D P !Tz E++ L 
Am I Ha- hc-- FH+++ IP?