From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Dec 19 15:17:46 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 19 Dec 2002 23:17:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 25596 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2002 23:17:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2002 23:17:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.107) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Dec 2002 23:17:43 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:17:43 -0800 Received: from 200.69.2.52 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 23:17:43 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Lemma and conjecture Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 23:17:43 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Dec 2002 23:17:43.0571 (UTC) FILETIME=[D561E630:01C2A7B4] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.2.52] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pier cusku di'e >Conjecture: If two lerpoi R and S which both lack 'y' are such that for all >i >R[i:i+1] is a valid initial consonant pair, valid consonant pair, valid >lujvo >diphthong, fa'u valid fu'ivla diphthong iff S[i:i+1], and R[i] is a vowel, >consonant, fa'u y'ybu iff S[i] is, then R is a valid brivla iff S is, >regardless of whether for some i R[i] is 'n', 'r', or 'l' and S[i] isn't. > >I am trying to prove the conjecture, but having trouble with words like >{paske'usazri}, where removing the first rafsi results in {ke'usazri}, >which >falls apart, while {ke'ursazri}, which is a lujvo, when {pas-} is added >becomes {paske'ursazri}, which falls apart. (Is the conjecture at all related to the lemma?) I'm not sure what the status of {ke'unsazri} or {ke'upsazri} is. Are they valid fu'ivla, because they can't be lujvo, or are they not valid fu'ivla, because there are possible lujvo of the form CVVC/CVCCV? If they are valid fu'ivla, then I can't see how the conjecture could possibly be false. If they are not valid fu'ivla, then obviously the conjecture is false. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail