Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Cultural fu'ivla

From: Cyril Slobin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 21:52:01 +0300 (MSK)

On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, [iso-8859-1] Alfred W. Tueting (TЭting) wrote:

> Running them through my lojban.vim, they all are showing lujvo *shape*.

lojban.vim is very approximate when talking about lujvo/fu'ivla. It
glues them both into one single word class, and even some ill-formed
words can be misrecognized as brivla-like. The goal was not to make
bullet-proof morphology check (OK, it _was_ the goal, but I failed to
accomplish it. Putting the whole lojban morphology into regexps should
be theoretically possible, but in practice regexps of reasonable size
(and therefore processing speed) can do it partially only). The real
advantage (I hope) of lojban.vim is improving the text readability for
lojban novices and to make some obvious errors really _obvious_.

> "lietviska" is illegal with the consonant pair "tv".

Like this.

> {magjaro} or {madjaro}, both fall apart to {ma}+gjaro/djaro (which both are
> regarded as *unknown*)

For lojban.vim they are regarded as brivla-like, similar as all the list
of suggested fu'ivla.

BTW, lojban.vim _does_ higlight as special case all of the popular
unofficial ethnic _gismu_ (loglo norgo spero talno turko).

-- 
Cyril Slobin <[email-masked]>