Subject: Re: [lojban] Fu'ivla diphthongs was: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 00:01:54 -0500

At 08:53 PM 11/29/02 -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
>On Friday 29 November 2002 20:18, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> > At 01:41 PM 11/29/02 -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> > >what about {cipnrxakuila}?
> >
> > I dunno? What about it? If someone has said it is invalid, what was their
> > reason?
>
>No one said it's invalid that I know of, but it contains a diphthong that
>does not appear in lujvo.
>
>According to chapter 3:
>
>The first four diphthongs above (``ai'', ``ei'', ``oi'', and ``au'', the ones
>with off-glides) are freely used in most types of Lojban words; the ten
>following ones are used only as stand-alone words and in Lojbanized names and
>borrowings; and the last two (``iy'' and ``uy'') are used only in Lojbanized
>names.
>
>Thus a fu'ivla can contain {ua} or {io} or {ui}.

Yes. But that does not mean that they can be used in unlimited ways.

First I will quote on the alternate orthography as an argument:
>On Friday 29 November 2002 13:01, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> > At 08:20 AM 11/29/02 -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> > >I don't use the TLI alternate orthography, so when I write {srutio}, I
> > > don't mean {sruti'o}.
> >
> > But if srutio is a valid word, then it has to be usable by those who DOyou
> > the alternate orthography.

The book actually dealt with this:
>· “i'a” through “i'u” and “u'a” through “u'u” are changed to “ia” 
>through “iu” and “ua” through “uu” in lujvo and cmavo other than 
>attitudinals, but become “i,a” through “i,u” and “u,a” through“u,u” in 
>names, fu'ivla, and attitudinal cmavo.

sruti'o is a lujvo in the alternate orthography become srutio. Thus we 
cannot allow srutio in fu'ivla space.

ckanku'a would fail slinkui so it is not a valid fu'ivla, but ckankru'a is 
a valid fu'ivla. In the alternate orthography, it would have to be written 
with commas ckankru,a, so ckankrua would be a distinct word.

srutio might be a valid fu'ivla, if not for the alternate 
orthography. However I personally would reject it as looking too much like 
a lujvo (or a typo for a lujvo). I still consider fu'ivla by intention to 
be second-class words in Lojban. I want them to be clearly seen to look 
different, and that word form doesn't. Furthermore, the difficulty of 
performing the slinkui test means that we shouldn't be trying to push the 
limits on what fu'ivla are allowed on that basis.

>From CLL
>All fu'ivla:
>::1) must contain a consonant cluster in the first five letters of the 
>word; if this consonant cluster is at the beginning, it must either be a 
>permissible initial consonant pair, or a longer cluster such that each 
>pair of adjacent consonants in the cluster is a permissible initial 
>consonant pair: “spraile” is acceptable, but not “ktraile” or “trkaile”;
>2) must end in one or more vowels;
>:3) must not be gismu or lujvo, or any combination of cmavo, gismu, 
>and lujvo; furthermore, a fu'ivla with a CV cmavo joined to the front of 
>it must not have the form of a lujvo (the so-called “slinku'i test”, not 
>discussed further in this book);
>:“”:4) cannot contain “y”, although they may contain syllabic 
>pronunciations of Lojban consonants;
>:5) like other brivla, are stressed on the penultimate syllable.
>:Note that consonant triples or larger clusters that are not at the 
>beginning of a fu'ivla can be quite flexible, as long as all consonant 
>pairs are permissible. There is no need to restrict fu'ivla clusters to 
>permissible initial pairs except at the beginning.

(Note that this explicitly says that clusters larger than 3 are permitted 
inside fu'ivla, to answer another post of yours. This does contradict 
statements on pg 36 and 37 that says that clusters cannot occur in numbers 
larger than 3. It is clear that we did not carefully deal with fu'ivla 
when Cowan wrote up the phonology rules. THIS is the sort of thing that 
can be properly addressed by the byfy.)

Rule 3 says that they cannot be lujvo or have the form of a lujvo. fu'ivla 
word space is defined as that brivla space which is left over when we 
remove the forms reserved for other words individually or in any legitimate 
combination in the speech stream.

>So {srutio} (a fu'ivla,
>discarded in favor of {strutione} for "ostrich") is distinct from {sruti'o}
>(a lujvo: "penumbra", maybe?), and {ckankua} (a fu'ivla: "skunk") is distinct
>from {ckanku'a} (a valsrslinku'i).
>
>As to the TLI alternate orthography, {i'o} in a fu'ivla is written as {i,o},
>but in a lujvo {i'o} is written as {io}.

Yes, and sruti'o is a lujvo, so how is it written?

> > I don't pretend to be more a master of fu'ivla than others. So far as I
> > know, however, the rafsi fu'ivla like that one all work.
>
>By work, do you mean that you can make words like {cipnrxakuilykanla}?

I meant "Type 3 fu'ivla", not "rafsi fu'ivla".

When we wrote up the word resolution algorithm (which hadn't been formally 
proven, and that is the only reason it did not make it into the refgrammar, 
but it was intended that it end up in the baseline documentation), we tried 
allowing "iy" as a hyphen for fu'ivla to be made into rafsi, but it simply 
made the algorithm too complicated, so we now use zei: cipnrxakuila zei 
kanla is a "lujvo" in principle (it is not a tanru in that it has a single 
specific meaning). The difference between zei and iy was insignificant in 
speech - they are both one syllable and no pause is required. In writing 
you may need to write the space, but no one has tested to find out.

The bottom line in cmene and fu'ivla is that we chose NOT to try to 
maximize the use of the available space (which might have allowed ala'um 
and srutio) because it is more important to minimize words being added in 
error that could cause problems later. It is easier to make a blanket rule 
forbidding "la" than to come up with a SIMPLE set of rules that allows 
someone to know when it is or is not allowed. It is easier to tell people 
to make Type 3 fu'ivla than to come up with valid Type 4s in the absence of 
a properly defined test to verify words (the word resolution algorthm was 
not a valid test, since it would only detect a slinkui violation if the 
word in question was preceded by a cmavo in the text.

We need two things. A valid word-resolution algorithm that can be proven 
(and which is verified to fit what was published in the refgrammar, since 
we put it aside long before the refgrammar was published), and a word 
tester that will classify all words allowing for ALL context situations 
(thereby always detecting slinkui violations and alternate orthography 
conflicts). If we have those, then it becomes useful to talk about how 
closely to allow fu'ivla to encroach on the other word spaces.

http://www.lojban.org/files/software/BRKWORDS.TXT

which as you can see was INTENDED to be part of the baseline, needs to be 
completed to fully discuss this matter. (the new policy does not define it 
to be part of the baseline, unless the byfy chooses to adopt something like 
this as a blanket resolution of the numerous glitches in the 
phonology/morphology section like the question of 4 or more 
consonants. But that requires that someone make it current and prove 
it. Anyone who wants to undertake this is welcome to it.

lojbab

-- 
lojbab [email-masked]
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