From richard@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com Sun Aug 12 15:22:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: richard@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 12 Aug 2001 22:22:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 62703 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2001 22:22:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 12 Aug 2001 22:22:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scrabble.freeuk.net) (212.126.144.6) by mta1 with SMTP; 12 Aug 2001 22:22:52 -0000 Received: from du-010-0052.freeuk.com ([212.126.153.52] helo=rrbcurnow.freeuk.com) by scrabble.freeuk.net with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #2) id 15W3d9-0000Ii-00; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 23:22:49 +0100 Received: from richard by rrbcurnow.freeuk.com with local (Exim 2.02 #2) id 15W39S-00004F-00; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 22:52:06 +0100 Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 22:52:06 +0100 To: John Cowan Cc: Lojban List Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: (C)V'{i|u}V Message-ID: <20010812225206.D204@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com> Mail-Followup-To: John Cowan , Lojban List References: <20010804230045.A425@rrbcurnow.freeuk.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i-nntp In-Reply-To: ; from cowan@ccil.org on Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 05:38:43PM -0400 From: Richard Curnow On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 05:38:43PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Richard Curnow scripsit: > > > 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? > > IMHO no. A word like baa or jbofie is a morphological monstrosity, > and should be reported as an error, just as brodybri'e should be > (it cannot be a cmene, cmavo, gismu, lujvo, or fu'ivla). > > The relevant principles are: > > 1. Commas never affect word identity or resolution. > > 2. The 11 illegal pairs can only appear in cmene or fu'ivla, in which > case they may be pronounced like the corresponding V'Vs > (so fa'an and fa,an are not distinct names, and bro,aboda and > bro'aboda are not distinct brivla). > > The whole point of forbidding cmavo like fa,i is that > it could be understood as fai or fa'i; and likewise for fa,a, fa, and fa'a. > >From this I infer that the sequence "e,a" is treated as "ea" from the perspective of legality checking and for determining word type, but it would be pronounced as though it were "e'a". Also, you imply that all 25 vowel pairs can occur in fu'ivla and cmene, with there being an implied "," inside non-diphthongs. So we'd have ai, au, ei, oi : valid in all words ia, ie, ii, io, iu, ua, ue, ui, uo, uu : valid as stand-alone cmavo, in fu'ivla and in cmene aa, ae, ao, ea, ee, eo, eu, oa, oe, oo, ou : valid in fu'ivla and cmene (with presence of "," implied) iu, uy : valid only in cmene Is that correct? In all cases, a comma between vowels must effectively be discarded prior to legality checking and word type determination. Correct or not? At the moment, I think jbofihe/vlatai ignore commas appearing between vowels and consonants. Is that the correct handling? The algorithm in jbofihe/vlatai v0.37 is inconsistent with John's other mail about "ci,e", since it treats this as a cmavo. Once the handling of commas is agreed, I'll generate a patch to fix this. -- 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