>Subject: Morphology proposal #3: tosrmabru, or hyphen-buffer equivalence
Nora understands this one to be withdrawn. It was thus not presented to
le ta'agri for comment.
My suspicion is that the buffer, and maybe the hyphen as well, will have
a length difference as well as vocalic character. Until we get a few
people who can talk at fluent speeds, the problems are purely
theoretical. And's point is taken, and we know what to watch for.
Subject: Morphology proposal 2: super-glue
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 14:29:59 EST
CURRENT LANGUAGE:
Currently "iy" is used to make le'avla lujvo by a set of rules that
involves placing "iy" both before and after a lea'vla (unless it is
initial, final, or adjoins another lea'vla) and then merging it with
arbitrary other rafsi or lujvo, with some exceptions which are implicit
in Nora's algorithm but haven't been nailed down anywhere.
Not yet adopted into the current language. le'avla and their
idiosyncrasies were omitted from the o/p/m baseline as not yet defined.
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Use "iy" as superglue for combining any list of words (none of which
contain "iy") into a single word.
le ta'agri consensus recommends assigning a normal cmavo (not iy) for this
purpose. The result will not be a single word morphologically, but will
have the semantics of a lujvo. By this we mean that stress rules applicable
apply to each component independently, and "si" erases a single component
word.
The new cmavo should preferably be a monosyllable (I don't have the list
of free ones handy, but I think there is one).
The exact hierarchy of this rule in the metagrammar wrt quotes, erasers,
UI, BAhE, must be specified in the grammar algorithm.
This is therefore to be considered a grammar change rather than a morphology
change, and dealt with accordingly.
Note that regular lujvo can be described as quasi-lujvo as well, giving still
one more form for a lujvo.
This collection of modifications seemed to make the concepts and rules most
teachable to the learning non-expert Lojbanist who would want such rules.
No rafsi are allowed, since rafsi are not words. "citiyplatipusa" would
become "citno,iy,platipusa".
By not using "iy", we retain the option of restoring le'avla lujvo under
some form of shortening algorithm, for use with Type 4 le'avla, and
generally made only be people who are familiar with whatever complexity
of rules is applicable. Until we have a significant number of such
le'avla, the Zipfean need for shortening the lujvo is of secondary
import. By then also, we may have better means for testing changes to
the hopefully approved morphology algorithm.
RATIONALE:
1) The formation rules are very simple: merge any set of words together.
2) The analysis is also simple, and even allows secondary stresses on the
components, as /cItno,iy,platipUsa/ will be unambiguous. If a stress is
detected, look two syllables ahead for a "iy" glue, and if found ignore
this stress.
This would be hard to explain clearly if you call the whole mess a
single word. You end up having words and WORDS. Better to just have words.
3) Many cmavo that do not have rafsi might be useful in compounds nonetheless,
with such possibilities as "X-ray", "gamma-ray", and "non-A, non-B hepatitis".
Since "iy" cannot begin a word, a single cmavo cannot fall off the front, so
"xy,iy,kantu", "ge'o,iy,gy,iy,kantu", and "na'e,iy,a,iy,bu,iy,je,iy,na'e,iy,
by,iy,xepatitisi" are valid brivla.
In effect, this creates a new category of brivla, rather than expanding the
category of lujvo: we now have gismu, lujvo, le'avla, and perhaps
"mi'avla" (combined-words). Like "le'avla", this lujvo omits a "sel-".
Would "bridi,iy,valsi" mean the same as "brivla"? If so, then they are
another form of lujvo. I (lojbab, not in consultation) would thus
suggest and favor a compound of lujvo (se'ijvo?).
Subject: Morphology proposal 1: oi-oi-oi!
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 14:15:41 EST
CURRENT LANGUAGE:
Every cmavo that begins with a vowel must be preceded by pause.
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Allow strings of VV cmavo without a separating pause. Nora's version of
the morphology is amended to include the sentence:
"If a piece consists only of vowels and possible apostrophes, divide it left
to right into VV or V'V cmavo."
Nora's opinion, concurred in by piro lei ta'agri, was that there were a
lot of loose ends to be tied up in this.
I interpolate from comments that eliminating ambiguous voiced glides
completely in any fully controlled part of the morphology (thus,
interior of names possibly excluded), is desireable. There is also the
question of interaction between diphthongs and single vowels:
?au,a ?a,ua ?ai,a ?a,ia
Then there are boundaries between cmavo and longer words
?laiatlstan ?= lai .atlstan or even ?lai .iatlstan
on the other end ?XAgraia ?= xagrai .a or ?= xagrai .ia (not "xagra .ia")
but yet no problem with ?XAgreui ?= xagre ui
This gives some idea of the scope to be considered. Please address in
detail with examples in a revised proposal
RATIONALE:
General reasonableness, plus compatibility with NB3 Loglan. Currently words
like ".oi,oi,oi" look like UNK cmavo, but it is most unlikely that any human
being would interpret this string as anything but ".oi.oi.oi".
Any problems with strings of vowels on the end of le'avla?