From richard@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com Sat Aug 04 15:24:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: richard@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 4 Aug 2001 22:24:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 94486 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2001 22:24:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Aug 2001 22:24:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net) (212.135.1.67) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Aug 2001 22:24:29 -0000 Received: from rrbcurnow.freeuk.com (tnt-2-205.easynet.co.uk [195.40.196.205]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE1A1D63B0 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 23:24:26 +0100 (BST) Received: from richard by rrbcurnow.freeuk.com with local (Exim 2.02 #2) id 15T9TR-000070-00; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 23:00:45 +0100 Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 23:00:45 +0100 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: (C)V'{i|u}V Message-ID: <20010804230045.A425@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010803124308.00bb95b0@pop.cais.com> <9kd1g5+u5fk@eGroups.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010803124308.00bb95b0@pop.cais.com> <20010803222032.D407@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010804005911.00cc9ba0@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i-nntp In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010804005911.00cc9ba0@pop.cais.com>; from lojbab@lojban.org on Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 01:09:07AM -0400 From: Richard Curnow coi rodo poi le lojbo vlataiske cu cinri ke'a la lojbab. pu cusku: > > So I guess I was wrong and jbofi'e matches the baseline standard, and the > word resolution algorithm needs to reflect this. > Phew! Well that's a relief anyway. In the other reply to my posting of yesterday, On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 06:25:36PM -0500, Michal Wallace wrote: > I believe the issue here is that "ue" is not a valid lojban dipthong, > whereas "ai" is.. If "ue" isn't a dipthong, is must be two syllables, > and therefore the same as bu,e or bu'e.. But "bai" sounds like "bye", > not "ba ee", so if you want "ba ee" you need a comma or apostrophe. > So this raises a new question, should we treat any vowel pair that is not a valid diphthong as though it has a hidden comma in it? ai, au, ei and oi would always have to be left as they are. Others (aa,ae,ao,ea,ee,eo,eu,oa,oe,oo,ou) _could_ be automatically treated as though they have a comma (==apostrophe). But is this entertained by the baseline? The remainder (the 10 starting with "i" or "u") are more tricky, because they are already valid when used stand-alone as cmavo, or within fu'ivla or cmene. So I guess the question is : in a word that would be a lujvo had the pair been "ai" instead, or a cmavo starting with a consonant, does the baseline treat these 10 pairs treated as though they have a comma (=apostrophe) in them? i.e. could the word jbofi'e be shortened to jbofie, on the basis that "ie" is invalid in a lujvo so the hidden comma (=apostrophe) can be re-introduced without ambiguity? co'o mi'e ritcrd. -- R.P.Curnow,Weston-super-Mare,UK |lo samskiro'a cu simsa lo'e glefau http://www.rrbcurnow.freeuk.com/ |isa'e le xamgu cu tcetcexau ije richard@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com |le xlali cu xagmau lenu nomei