Lojban In General

Lojban In General

Forum List Topic List

Forums > Lojban In General > Superfluous {tosmabru} check?
 
Thread actions
Print this page
  • Print all pages

    • Superfluous {tosmabru} check?

    Posted by Minimiscience on Wed 26 of Nov, 2008 23:15 GMT posts: 3588

    coi logji jbopre

    I was just reading the {lujvo} creation algorithm in the Lojban Reference
    Grammar, attempting to convert it to Perl, when I noticed something that seemed
    to be unnecessary. CLL chapter 4, section 11, item 5 says:

    Test all forms with one or more initial CVC-form rafsi --- with the pattern
    ``CVC ... CVC + X --- for ``tosmabru failure. X must either be a CVCCV
    long rafsi that happens to have a permissible initial pair as the consonant
    cluster, or is ***something which has caused a ``y''-hyphen to be installed
    between the previous CVC and itself by one of the above rules.***

    Note the highlighted part. The only two reasons that a 'y' hyphen would have
    been inserted was if (a) it came after a four-letter {rafsi}, in which case it
    would not be at the end of a sequence of CVC {rafsi}, or (b) it came in the
    middle of an impermissible consonant pair. However, an impermissible consonant
    pair clearly cannot be a valid initial consonant pair, and so the "joint" at
    that location would always cause no further hyphens in the word to be needed.
    Item 5a even explicitly states that the last joint is the last consonant of the
    CVC sequence plus the first consonant of the 'X' part, "*ignoring any
    ``y''-hyphen before the X*", and so it can never be true in such a {lujvo} that
    all joints are initial consonant pairs. Thus, the {tosmabru} test will always
    indicate that a {lujvo} of the form "(CVC)* + 'y' + X" does not need any
    further hyphens, and so applying the test to such a {lujvo} in the first place
    is completely pointless. Is this true, or am I missing something very basic?

    la'o gy. Minimiscience .gy.

    --
    do ganai ka'e tcidu dei gi djuno lo dukse


    To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
    with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
    you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

    Reads: 17214
    Link
    Posted by "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" on Wed 26 of Nov, 2008 23:43 GMT

    On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Minimiscience <minimiscience@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Thus, the {tosmabru} test will always
    > indicate that a {lujvo} of the form "(CVC)* + 'y' + X" does not need any
    > further hyphens, and so applying the test to such a {lujvo} in the first place
    > is completely pointless. Is this true, or am I missing something very basic?

    Consider bab+lab+bla: bablabybla = ba blabybla

    mu'o mi'e xorxes


    To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
    with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
    you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

    Link
    Posted by Minimiscience on Thu 27 of Nov, 2008 00:06 GMT posts: 3588

    de'i li 26 pi'e 11 pi'e 2008 la'o fy. Jorge Llambías .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra.
    > Consider bab+lab+bla: bablabybla = ba blabybla
    .skamyxatra

    Good point, but that actually means that the {lujvo}-making algorithm as
    described in the CLL is wrong (or at least very poorly worded). As "bb" is not
    a valid initial consonant pair, the {tosmabru} test still says in §4.11.5b that
    no extra hyphens are needed, which is clearly wrong.

    la'o gy. Minimiscience .gy.

    --
    no zo mi nenri zo bende


    To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
    with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
    you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

    Link
    Posted by "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" on Thu 27 of Nov, 2008 00:43 GMT

    On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Minimiscience <minimiscience@gmail.com> wrote:
    > de'i li 26 pi'e 11 pi'e 2008 la'o fy. Jorge Llambías .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra.
    >> Consider bab+lab+bla: bablabybla = ba blabybla
    > .skamyxatra
    >
    > Good point, but that actually means that the {lujvo}-making algorithm as
    > described in the CLL is wrong (or at least very poorly worded). As "bb" is not
    > a valid initial consonant pair, the {tosmabru} test still says in §4.11.5b that
    > no extra hyphens are needed, which is clearly wrong.

    Yes, that "ignoring any ``y''-hyphen before the X" doesn't seem to
    make any sense.

    mu'o mi'e xorxes


    To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
    with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
    you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

    Link
    Posted by "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" on Thu 27 of Nov, 2008 01:18 GMT

    I added the followingto to
    <http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=CLL%2C+aka+Reference+Grammar%2C+Errata>


    Chapter 4, section 11, 5a)

    "Examine all the C/C consonant pairs that join the CVC rafsi, and also
    the pair between the last CVC and the X portion, ignoring any
    "y"-hyphen before the X."

    should read instead:

    "Examine all the C/C consonant pairs up to the first "y"-hyphen, or up
    to the end of the word in case there are no "y"-hyphens."

    mu'o mi'e xorxes


    To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
    with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
    you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

    Link
    Posted by Minimiscience on Thu 27 of Nov, 2008 01:34 GMT posts: 3588

    de'i li 26 pi'e 11 pi'e 2008 la'o fy. Jorge Llambías .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra.
    > Chapter 4, section 11, 5a)
    >
    > "Examine all the C/C consonant pairs that join the CVC rafsi, and also
    > the pair between the last CVC and the X portion, ignoring any
    > "y"-hyphen before the X."
    >
    > should read instead:
    >
    > "Examine all the C/C consonant pairs up to the first "y"-hyphen, or up
    > to the end of the word in case there are no "y"-hyphens."
    .skamyxatra

    That definitely makes more sense. ki'e sai

    mu'omi'e la'o gy. Minimiscience .gy.

    --
    do ganai ka'e tcidu dei gi djuno lo dukse


    To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
    with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
    you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

    Link
    Posted by PierreAbbat on Thu 27 of Nov, 2008 03:31 GMT posts: 324

    On Wednesday 26 November 2008 18:12:37 Minimiscience wrote:
    > coi logji jbopre
    >
    > Note the highlighted part. The only two reasons that a 'y' hyphen would
    > have been inserted was if (a) it came after a four-letter {rafsi}, in which
    > case it would not be at the end of a sequence of CVC {rafsi}, or (b) it
    > came in the middle of an impermissible consonant pair. However, an
    > impermissible consonant pair clearly cannot be a valid initial consonant
    > pair, and so the "joint" at that location would always cause no further
    > hyphens in the word to be needed. Item 5a even explicitly states that the
    > last joint is the last consonant of the CVC sequence plus the first
    > consonant of the 'X' part, "*ignoring any ``y''-hyphen before the X*", and
    > so it can never be true in such a {lujvo} that all joints are initial
    > consonant pairs. Thus, the {tosmabru} test will always indicate that a
    > {lujvo} of the form "(CVC)* + 'y' + X" does not need any further hyphens,
    > and so applying the test to such a {lujvo} in the first place is completely
    > pointless. Is this true, or am I missing something very basic?

    It is possible for 'y' to be required without the two rafsi having an
    impermissible consonant pair. Here is an example:

    mi jbinytcadu mijybinytcadu

    It is also possible for the type-3 fu'ivla algorithm in the Book to produce an
    invalid word, for the same reason. An example is "ler + djamo", which would
    be "lerndjamo" by the Book, but has to be "lerldjamo".

    Pierre


    To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
    with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
    you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

    Link