Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: valfendi algorithm

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 20:31:28 -0500

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 [email-masked]
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