Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: valfendi algorithm

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 02:35:59 -0500

At 09:21 PM 1/24/03 -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
>On Friday 24 January 2003 20:31, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> > (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.)
>
>The Book is gricingly unclear about this detail:
>
> Names are not permitted to have the sequences ``la'', ``lai'', or ``doi''
>embedded in them, unless the sequence is immediately preceded by a consonant.
>
>Since anything that contains the sequence "lai" contains the sequence "la",
>and following "la" or "lai" with a vowel makes it unbreakable just as
>preceding it with a consonant does, I griced it to mean "...preceded by a
>consonant or followed by a vowel". But if that were the case, why isn't
>"la'i" mentioned?

ai, as a diphthong, is a single vowel sound, so lai is a distinct sequence 
to a speech stream lexer. which is why we called it out separately. "la'i" 
contains "la" plus other sounds so that it is not distinct in a speech 
stream. "lau" is distinct from both "la" and "lai". So my interpretation 
(and intent in the original specs which Cowan worked into the book) is that 
embedded la and la'i don't work (as well as other "la'V", and lau probably 
isn't forbidden in a name (but I probably wouldn't use it). If (as seems 
to be the problem in at least one situation below), allowing "lau" causes 
confusion due to other rules, then I would vote to not allow "lau".

The "preceded by a consonant" was not originally part of the language spec 
but was added in the 90s when it was pointed out that it couldn't ever 
cause any problems. It is thus an explicitly noted exception to the 
standard rules. It was explicitly NOT intended as a precedent allowing 
other exceptions merely because someone could prove that they caused no 
problem. I suspect that this intent can easily be established in Lojban 
List archives because I know this was discussed a lot.

> A few lines later it says "No cmene may have the syllables
>``la'', ``lai'', or ``doi'' in them, unless immediately preceded by a
>consonant." In {laus}, "la" is a sequence, but not a syllable.

That was why the word "sequence" was used in the first instance - because 
someone probably pointed out the ambiguity of using "syllable", though it 
introduced a new ambiguity.

> In {la,us}, it is both a sequence and a syllable.

So it would be forbidden. When in doubt, restrict.

>But the presence or absence of commas in a
>word makes no difference to the identity or validity of the word. So is that
>valid or not?

This seems to be invoking the apparently self-contradictory definition of 
the close-comma from page 32:
>The comma is used to indicate a syllable break within a word, generally 
>one that is
>not obvious to the reader. Such a comma is written to separate syllables, 
>but indicates that
>there must be no pause between them, in contrast to the period. Between 
>two vowels, a
>comma indicates that some type of glide may be necessary to avoid a pause 
>that would
>split the two syllables into separate words. It is always legal to use the 
>apostrophe (IPA
>[K]) sound in pronouncing a comma. However, a comma cannot be pronounced 
>as a pause
>or glottal stop between the two letters separated by the comma, because 
>that pronunciation
>would split the word into two words.
>Otherwise, a comma is usually only used to clarify the presence of 
>syllabic "l", "m",
>"n", or "r" (discussed later). Commas are never required: no two Lojban 
>words differ
>solely because of the presence or placement of a comma.

wherein it says in one paragraph that you can always use an apostrophe 
sound to pronounce a comma, whereas no two Lojban words differ because of 
the presence of a comma.

The latter paragraph would appear to mean that "au" and "a,u" are the same 
word, but the first paragraph allows "a,u" to be pronounced as "a'u" which 
is a different word from "au". The byfy needs to resolve the issue one way 
or the other, which would determine whether "la,us" would be read as "laus" 
or "la'us". By my comment above, the first reading would make it legal and 
the second reading would make it illegal.

Now you can argue that "la'us" could never be understood as "la 'us" (and 
indeed you do in a moment), and therefore *should* be allowed, but neither 
"sequence" nor "syllable" permits that exception so the "should" is 
inoperative: it *isn't* allowed. We aren't trying to make the rules for 
names and fu'ivla as loose as can be resolved; we want the rules to be easy 
to understand and to use.

>{laus} cannot be broken into {la ,us}, nor {ala'um} into {a la
>'um}, because a word cannot begin with an apostrophe or with a pauseless
>vowel.

Doesn't matter. The rules do not state an exception, so there is no 
exception. I want as few exception-rules as we can get away with. The 
consonant-before-la rule I accepted reluctantly. If I had known it would 
lead to people trying to push the exceptions further, I would have chosen 
"no exceptions at all". That will be my preferred position in byfy 
discussions as well. Keep the rules for what is allowed as simple as 
possible even if it makes some things harder to Lojbanize properly.

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