Subject: Re: [lojban] morphology

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:18:26 EST

In a message dated 11/30/2001 4:02:13 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> is it true that the lojban morphology is exaustively proven? that 
> is, can it be shown that when following the morphology rules, audio 
> visual isomorphism is assured? i was under the impression that it 
> wasn't, and this was what was holding up cultural fu'ivla.
> 
> furthurmore, can it be proven within reasonable limits, such as not 
> allowing fu'ivla?
> 

I'm not sure I understand the question, which seems off thinkit's usual 
points. The audiovisual isomorphism is trivially assured regardless of what 
happens with fu'ivla. Questions about about unique word segmentation or 
morpheme segmentation are more likely to be problems with any complex word 
forms. And checking out the possible ways that things can go wrong is 
probably what is holding up (if anything still is) approval of a variety of 
fu'ivla forms.