Subject: [lojban] Re: la ogYsty.

From: Jay F Kominek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:38:47 -0600

On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 03:45:51PM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> I am having difficulty in working out how {la .ogYsty.} can misparse
> in such a way as to make it illicit.

By not ending in a consonant.

> The same question goes for {la stylanan.} and {la stailanan}.

By having 'la' in them.

> Given that we want want the phonological structure of cmevla to
> be as unconstrained as possible,

"Must end in a consonant, can't contain la/lai/doi" is pretty damned
unconstrained. I suppose the consonant clusters can't be too ungodly,
and you're limited to the sounds Lojban, but you've got to draw the
line somewhere. It is unreasonable to expect or require that a foreign
language be able to render every possible name. I don't see you
demanding that clicks be allowed in names, after all.

> was there any reason why the rule wasn't something like "break the
> string up into pause- delimited chunks, and then parse those chunks
> into the smallest possible licit words"?

The rule is really quite simple, unless you refuse to accept it,
(which you seem to be doing) in which case we can't do anything for
you.

As someone who'd actually be able to render their (first) name more
accurately if the consonantly ending rule were dropped, I'm still all
for it. I didn't sign up with Lojban so I could keep my name (or any
one else's) unmolested.

I thought you were going to keep jboske silliness on the jboske list,
too. "I'm going to ignore a CLEARLY STATED RULE and then complain
about it to the mailing list" is pretty clearly a little jboske "lets
fiddle with existing unambiguous parts of the language" game.

-- 
Jay Kominek <[email-masked]>
Don't worry,
Things have an annoying tendency to work out.