From lojbab@lojban.org Sat Sep 01 22:58:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 2 Sep 2001 05:58:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 64453 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2001 05:58:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Sep 2001 05:58:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-2.cais.net) (205.252.14.72) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Sep 2001 05:58:21 -0000 Received: from user.lojban.org (224.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.224]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f825wK065815 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2001 01:58:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010902015425.00be9dc0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 01:56:28 -0400 To: Subject: Re: [lojban] clashes In-Reply-To: <0109012338460P.01089@neofelis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 11:38 PM 9/1/01 -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote: >I see comments in various pages in the Wiki that some proposed gismu clashes >with some preexisting gismu. For instance, {tango} is said to clash with >{tanko}. I know that similar consonants were checked when making the gimste, >but I don't see why anything but having the same first four letters is a >clash, according to the morphology. IIRC, the gismu making algorithm excluded all words that differed only by a voiced/unvoiced distinction or for palatals, only a stop/fricative (s/c or z/j distinction). lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org