From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Jan 24 04:59:54 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 24 Jan 2003 12:59:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 11844 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2003 12:59:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Jan 2003 12:59:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao02.cox.net) (68.1.17.243) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Jan 2003 12:59:53 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20030124125952.ZLKN6744.lakemtao02.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 07:59:52 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20030124074752.0360aec0@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 07:56:34 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: valfendi algorithm In-Reply-To: <200301231832.18683.phma@webjockey.net> References: <20030123201332.GA7230@digitalkingdom.org> <200301222303.45852.phma@webjockey.net> <20030123201332.GA7230@digitalkingdom.org> 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 06:32 PM 1/23/03 -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote: >On Thursday 23 January 2003 15:13, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > Hoo-boy. > > > > What, exactly, do the proofs demonstrate? > >Hopefully, that all well-formed Lojban words can be lexed correctly by the >algorithm, regardless of what Lojban words precede and follow them, as long >as the syllables are stressed correctly and pauses are inserted where >required. This does not sound like it is a proper defining algorithm for the Lojban morphology as you've described it, and as a first glance at the text indicates. It may parse all well-formed Lojban words, but it also may successfully lex some not-well-formed Lojban (your algorithm seems to allow fu'ivla with embedded text strings that would invalidate the fu'ivla if it is a proper gismu or rafsi, but allows the fu'ivla if it is not). This is merely another stage in our long running dispute as to whether type IV fu'ivla are to be constrained to specific forms positively defined, or can consist of anything lexable word that could be a brivla that isn't a gismu or lujvo. 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