From araizen@newmail.net Sat May 11 11:46:10 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_2); 11 May 2002 18:46:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 13507 invoked from network); 11 May 2002 18:46:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 May 2002 18:46:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mxout2.netvision.net.il) (194.90.9.21) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 May 2002 18:46:10 -0000 Received: from default ([62.0.183.236]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 0.2 (built Apr 26 2002)) with SMTP id <0GVY002DQMPUZ9@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 11 May 2002 21:44:20 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 21:45:34 +0200 Subject: Re: [lojban] Self Segregation To: Lojban List Message-id: <000f01c1f924$6f7286c0$ecb7003e@default> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: From: Adam Raizen X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=3063669 X-Yahoo-Profile: araizen 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.