From lojbab@lojban.org Sat Dec 23 16:13:02 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 24 Dec 2000 00:13:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 81590 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2000 00:13:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Dec 2000 00:13:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-1.cais.net) (205.252.14.71) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Dec 2000 00:13:02 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (ppp19.net-A.cais.net [205.252.61.19]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBO0D0H69518 for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 19:13:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001223190300.00b6f860@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: lojban/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 19:13:58 -0500 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Cultural fu'ivla In-Reply-To: <00121809160513.01286@neofelis> References: <20001218064404.B108@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com> <0012162022460J.01286@neofelis> <20001218064404.B108@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier At 09:07 AM 12/18/2000 -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote: > >Is this stuff still considered baselined? In which case Pierre's list > >will need transforming into this format. If it's not considered to be > >current Lojban any more I'd like to know, as I was going to be building > >support for this into the next release of jbofi'e (in terms of the > >algorithm to split lujvo into rafsi at least). Clearly this might save > >me some work :-) > >According to 4.16, it's not baselined, it's an experimental proposal. I don't >agree with reserving CCVVCV for cultural fu'ivla, or making all cultural >fu'ivla be of that form, since most of them don't fit into that form. I think >it should be just another fu'ivla tarmi. The only sense in which it is "reserved" is that at the time the book was written, we were willing to consider the coining of cultural fu'ivla in that form and if the combining form with 'y' proved unambiguous (something that has never been tested), lujvo using that combining form would be legitimate - thus the fu'ivla form is not reserved, only the combining rafsi for words in that form are limited to culture words in that form. If the combining form was not unambiguous, then the fu'ivla would still be valid on their own, though of course not necessarily the ideal form for some words - they just could not be used in lujvo. >As to rafsi fu'ivla, I don't see why a fu'ivla couldn't fall at the end of a >lujvo, as long as the rafsi preceding it forces the insertion of a 'y' by the >rules. If you can come up with a counterexample, please let me know; maybe it >means that the rules for fu'ivla should be restricted. 1) Any change to the rules for fu'ivla would be a baseline change. 2) By definition, fu'ivla space is all valid brivla space that is not otherwise invalidated by the more important gismu and lujvo forms. Being defined only by exception, there really aren't any "rules" for fu'ivla that can be changed. 3) Similarly, with an infinite number of fu'ivla forms, it would probably be impossible to test ALL fu'ivla forms to ensure that they could occur at the end of a lujvo (there might be a mathematical model that would allow such a proof, but the math is far beyond my level). 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