From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Dec 05 05:34:03 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 5 Dec 2002 13:34:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 79424 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2002 13:34:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Dec 2002 13:34:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao03.cox.net) (68.1.17.242) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 2002 13:34:02 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20021205133401.RQHY2204.lakemtao03.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 08:34:01 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20021205081755.00aa7030@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 08:25:42 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] cmegadri valfendi preti In-Reply-To: <02120414202304.01986@neofelis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab At 02:20 PM 12/4/02 -0500, Pierre wrote: >Another question: why is the cmegadri broken off from what precedes it, To make life easy. The goal, as I've said before, is to make it easy for the listener/processor. There exist possible fu'ivla and possible cmene which could in theory be separated, but which might be more difficult in some environments, or where coming up with a concise statement of the rule is not possible. Since maximizing the use of these is NOT a Lojban design priority, we opted for the easy to state rule, rather than a more difficult rule that might allow some perfectly resolvable names or fu'ivla, but where the learner will have trouble with the rule. >instead of just breaking between the cmene and the cmegadri and leaving the >cmegadri to be found later? What about {MUstelaVIson} and {muSTElaVIson}? How >should they be analyzed? The former looks to me like "muste la vison"; the latter like an error because I want to see it as "mu stela vison", which is ungrammatical - the name cannot be preceded by a gismu, but only by "la" or doi". 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