[lojban] Re: Superfluous {tosmabru} check?

[Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu>]

On Wednesday 26 November 2008 18:12:37 Minimiscience wrote:
> coi logji jbopre
>
> Note the highlighted part.  The only two reasons that a 'y' hyphen would
> have been inserted was if (a) it came after a four-letter {rafsi}, in which
> case it would not be at the end of a sequence of CVC {rafsi}, or (b) it
> came in the middle of an impermissible consonant pair.  However, an
> impermissible consonant pair clearly cannot be a valid initial consonant
> pair, and so the "joint" at that location would always cause no further
> hyphens in the word to be needed. Item 5a even explicitly states that the
> last joint is the last consonant of the CVC sequence plus the first
> consonant of the 'X' part, "*ignoring any ``y''-hyphen before the X*", and
> so it can never be true in such a {lujvo} that all joints are initial
> consonant pairs.  Thus, the {tosmabru} test will always indicate that a
> {lujvo} of the form "(CVC)* + 'y' + X" does not need any further hyphens,
> and so applying the test to such a {lujvo} in the first place is completely
> pointless.  Is this true, or am I missing something very basic?

It is possible for 'y' to be required without the two rafsi having an 
impermissible consonant pair. Here is an example:

mi jbinytcadu mijybinytcadu

It is also possible for the type-3 fu'ivla algorithm in the Book to produce an 
invalid word, for the same reason. An example is "ler + djamo", which would 
be "lerndjamo" by the Book, but has to be "lerldjamo".

Pierre


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.