Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: valfendi algorithm

From: Pierre Abbat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 08:19:01 -0500

On Friday 24 January 2003 07:56, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> 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.

I am planning further versions which will check all words for well-formedness. 
Currently it accepts anything ending in a consonant and not containing a 
cmegadri as a cmene, including such unpronounceable messes as {mzantcesg}. 
What do you mean by "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"? Can you give an example?

phma