Re: [lojban] Self Segregation

[Adam Raizen <araizen@newmail.net>]

la'o zoi. mcslason .zoi cusku di'e

> This is my first post.

Welcome!

> What I don't understand at this point is how the language
> disambiguates longer brivla which start with a cmavo-look-alike
> followed immediately by a legal initial consonant cluster. Pulled
> from the current lujvo list, consider:

The rules concerning these kinds of words are a bit complicated. As I
understanding it, this is mostly because the basic morphology hasn't
changed radically since the very beginning (~1955), and patches have
been added whenever a problem has been discovered.

> [1] (brivla) backemselRERkru ?= (cmavo) ba + (brivla) ckemselRERkru
> [2] (brivla) dicka'uDENmi "electrically negative" ?= (cmavo) di +
> (brivla) cka'uDENmi
> [3] (brivla) guSMINra ?= (cmavo) gu + (brivla) SMINra
>
> There are many more examples.
>
> Considering [3], what is to prevent me from analyzing "gusminra" as
> cmavo "gu" followed by hypothetical brivla "sminru"? Note
> that "sminru":
>
> - ends in a vowel;
> - contain a consonant pair in the first five letters;
> - is stressed on the next-to-the-last (penultimate) syllable;
>
> thus meeting all the requirements for a brivla.

The basic problem here is what is called the "slinku'i" test, which
says that no brivla (especially fu'ivla) can have such a form that
adding a CV-sequence to the front (such as 'gu') would give a valid
lujvo. It is briefly mentioned in the book's rules for fu'ivla
(chapter 4, section 7, rule 3 for fu'ivla, p. 62). The most complete
and standard word resolution algorithm is described at
http://www.lojban.org/files/software/BRKWORDS.TXT, though it's not
official. Note especially paragraph 2.C.4)b)5]e]2>.

mu'o mi'e .adam.