From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Jan 24 17:37:32 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 25 Jan 2003 01:37:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 38249 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2003 01:37:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Jan 2003 01:37:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao03.cox.net) (68.1.17.242) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Jan 2003 01:37:31 -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 <20030125013730.JLVO8666.lakemtao03.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 20:37:30 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20030124202537.03d9ab60@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 20:31:28 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: valfendi algorithm In-Reply-To: <200301240819.01200.phma@webjockey.net> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030124074752.0360aec0@pop.east.cox.net> <20030123201332.GA7230@digitalkingdom.org> <5.2.0.9.0.20030124074752.0360aec0@pop.east.cox.net> 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 08:19 AM 1/24/03 -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote: >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? My understanding of: >A slinku'i, as far as word breaking is concerned, is anything that matches >the following regex: >^C[raf3]*([gim]?$|[raf4]?y) >where >C matches any consonant >[raf3] matches any 3-letter rafsi >[raf4] matches any 4-letter rafsi >[gim] matches any gismu. A correct algorithm would use the structures CVC/CVV/CCV for raf3, CVCC/CCVC for raf4 and CVCCV/CCVCV for gim. It doesn't matter whether the values are in fact actually used. Post-freeze it seems logical that it would and should be easier to add and subtract from the gismu/rafsi lists than to change the entire morphology, so the morphology is defined at a higher level than the specific list of words. (In addition "ala'um" is not an "option"; there should be no options in an official algorithm. It is either valid or invalid according to the rules.) 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