valsrmu'erskepre: val-sr-mu-'er-SKE-pr-emu'erskepres: mu-'er-ske-presThe advantage of lujvo=>zi'evla is that you see where camxes thinks the stress is -- but I didn't expect that consonantal_syllable "pr". Is that really how you would pronounce that zi'evla? How many syllables does it have?
That'a bug in the morphology, well found! I've changed the consonantal-syllable rule to:consonantal-syllable <- consonant syllabic !nucleus (consonant &spaces)?
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:01:20 PM UTC-3, xorxes wrote:That'a bug in the morphology, well found! I've changed the consonantal-syllable rule to:consonantal-syllable <- consonant syllabic !nucleus (consonant &spaces)?
If these changes are approved, I will update jbovlaste, reclassifying the words as obsolete. I will also mark as unparseable the sentences in the test corpus which contain the problematic words.
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:01:20 PM UTC-3, xorxes wrote:That'a bug in the morphology, well found! I've changed the consonantal-syllable rule to:consonantal-syllable <- consonant syllabic !nucleus (consonant &spaces)?Using this rule change, I reverified the current contents of jbovlaste and the camxes test corpus. The following words in jbovlaste are no longer considered morphologically valid according to this rule:
artmozaikoklaktnomastlamustleipostmorartnivenzlaxipfne
bangrtlinganabanrtlinganabanrtlinganu
bongnanba
gudjratiingmeme
The only words that should remain in your list would be these, because they don't consist of valid syllables:artmozaikoklaktnomastlamustleipostmorartnivenzlaxipfnebangrtlinganabanrtlinganabanrtlinganubongnanbagudjratiingmeme
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Heh, I _thought_ *{bongnanba} seemed inordinately hard to pronounce. I applied this change and ran mukti's list through. The remaining non-parsing words are:klivlyndsmanyjinkytoldu'evir
runtngasnrproni
So just two that you weren't expecting, nice! I didn't check any words not in mukti's list, though.
Sorry, all three appear to be my bugs. mukti is re-running the full check just in case.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:The only words that should remain in your list would be these, because they don't consist of valid syllables:artmozaikoklaktnomastlamustleipostmorartnivenzlaxipfnebangrtlinganabanrtlinganabanrtlinganubongnanbagudjratiingmeme
BTW, the standard way to "fix" these (if one wanted to keep the consonantal syllable) would be to add x- before the onset-less syllable, so we'd have:artmxozaikokaktnxomastlxamustlxeipostmxorartnxivenzlxaxipfnxebangrtlxinganabanrtlxinganabanrtlxinganubongnxanbagudjrxatiingmxememu'o mi'e xorxes
--
OK, I think I may have figured it out. The correct change was to:consonantal-syllable <- consonant syllabic &(consonantal-syllable / !nucleus onset) (consonant &spaces)?
Hopefully I got it right this time. Could you check again?
From usability point of view: {postmxo} is infinitely harder to pronounce than {postmo}.
{klivlynd} and {smanyjinkytoldu'evir} seem to be failing due to faulty slinku'i detection, which durka has patched -- I'll apply his patch and run the batch one more time.
Jorge Llambías scripsit:
> artmxozaiko
> kaktnxo
> mastlxa
etc. etc.
These words are far worse than their x-less equivalents. Better to reformulate
the grammar to allow art-mo-zai-ko.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org
Income tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so, is a tax on income.
--Lord Macnaghten (1901)
Jorge Llambías scripsit:
> artmxozaiko
> kaktnxo
> mastlxa
etc. etc.
These words are far worse than their x-less equivalents. Better to reformulate
the grammar to allow art-mo-zai-ko.
However, in general I don't see any problems with pronouncing {mastla}.Why {mastra} is a fine brivla but {mastla} should not be (morphological classes apart)?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
Now there is nothing difficult about "mast-la", but our parsers are set up
to accept two consonants in the coda only if they have to.
I think that's
an unnecessary limitation, as if "mast-la" were simpler than "mast-xla".
Alex Burka, On 25/10/2014 20:12:
I don't see how you could replace all consideration of consonant clusters with CV + explicit buffer vowels. Wouldn't you lose the ability to specify which clusters are valid, which ones are valid initially, etc?
You're quite right: these constraints on 'consonant clusters' cannot plausibly be phonological and must rather be morphophonological. The distribution of buffer vowels proves that phonological structure is essentially CV. While in principle, phonological constraints on Cs in /C%C/ sequences are not implausible, the particular constraints Lojban wants to impose are. Therefore, any constraints on 'clusters' are more plausibly morphophonological. Morphophonological rules can do whatever you like.
But if Lojban syllabification is essentially CV (or simplex onset + simplex nucleus), give or take any complications with glides, why bother with a bunch of morphophonological constraints? Is it just because they are codified in CLL (albeit in erroneously phonological terms) and therefore cannotbe abandoned? Would abandoning morphophonological constraints invalidate existing words or text?
Can we talk about "morphophonological syllables"? If yes, then assume this discussion is basically about morphophonological syllables rather than phonological ones.
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 4:07 PM, And Rosta <and....@gmail.com> wrote:
But if Lojban syllabification is essentially CV (or simplex onset + simplex nucleus), give or take any complications with glides, why bother with a bunch of morphophonological constraints? Is it just because they are codified in CLL (albeit in erroneously phonological terms) and therefore cannotbe abandoned? Would abandoning morphophonological constraints invalidate existing words or text?Abandoning the constraints against double consonants, voiced-unvoiced clusters, sibilant-sibilant clusters, x-c/k clusters and mz would not invalidate anything, as far as I can tell.
The distinction between valid and invalid "onsets" is mostly what is needed to delimit words.mu'o mi'e xorxes
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk...@googlegroups.com.
"Morphogical syllables" (maybe renamed to something a little less susceptible to confusion) would be fine. My questions would then be what the rules are and why. The norms of language don't constrain morphophonological rules much, so they can be as weird and wacky as necessary. The rule you give below, CVC*, seems pretty straightforward.
Actually, that's not quite true. We do need to identify valid onsets
in order to determine words, but this discussion wasn't really about
onsets.
The question about onsets being whether CGV is a valid onset?
But "morphological onsets" are needed too, aren't they. E.g. /patrAma/ is two words /pa trAma/ whereas /partAma/ is one word, because of the rules for morpho-onsets.
Well, today's morphophonology is yesterday's phonology (e.g. the vowel alternation in _sane--sanity_), so it makes sense diachronically but not synchronically. But for Lojban you don't look for diachronic explanations. (In Lojban too the actual explanation is of course quasi-diachronic, in that the complex constraints on 'clusters' were likely invented before the buffer vowel.)
Without a buffer vowel, it does make sense to limit the amount of
consonant clustering that can occur. If there was a buffer vowel,
the morphophonological syllable could still be onset-nucleus-coda as
now, but with the coda allowed to contain as many consonants as you
wanted. That's not how my dialect of lojban works though.
In what way is it not how your dialect of Lojban works? It would categorize as valid some words that you categorize as invalid? Or would it insert word-boundaries differently? The latter seems more significant an objection than the former.
So anyway, do you advocate abolishing the buffer vowel? An alternative would be to insist that every licit phonological string has both a CV syllabification (with buffer vowels) and a resyllabification without buffer vowels. That alternative strikes me as needlessly complex, but as still preferable to abolishing the buffer vowel.
If morpho-codas were unconstrained, and morpho-onsets were as per CLL (modulo any semivowel complications), what effects would that have on current lexis and usage?
There are also some constraints on which syllables can be adjacent: the final consonant of a syllable and the first consonant of the next syllable can't be the same, they can't have different voicedness, they can't both be sibilants, if one is x the other can't be c or k, if the first is m the other can't be z. Also, a syllable that ends with n can't be followed by one that starts with an affricate (tc, ts, dj, dz). Some of these constraints sound completely arbitrary, and they are. In addition, some combinations are disallowed only because they give the same result as some other combination, e.g. tav+la = ta+vla. It doesn't make any difference if we say tav+la is disallowed, or if we say it's equivalent to ta+vla.
A very precise specification of the what, but not so clear on the why. Are there rationales other than "Because CLL says so"? And if that is the only rationale, and the rules could be drastically simplified without invalidating any existing lexis, why not simplify the rules? (Given that anyway the CLL rules are plainly not complete and fully specified.)
There are 18 valid (morphological) codas: the 17 consonants and the empty coda.
I guess it's at least 17, because each of the 17 Cs can occur word-medially before another C that it can't occur word-initially before?
Does CLL forbid CC codas? I guess this would be in fu'ivla. So /artsta/ is not a valid fu'ivla, say?
All words (except for cmevla) consist of a sequence of valid syllables.
Is this from CLL?
If the constraints apply only to words of certain classes, then the constraints are almost certainly morphophonological and not phonological in nature.
Just the former. I would not want to categorize "poktpftcu" for
example as a valid word.
But is that for any reason other than habit?
2014-10-25 23:51 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:Abandoning the constraints against double consonants, voiced-unvoiced clusters, sibilant-sibilant clusters, x-c/k clusters and mz would not invalidate anything, as far as I can tell.For them an autocorrection might be implemented in parsers that would automatically insert {y} between them.
Jorge Llambías, On 26/10/2014 13:58:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:32 AM, And Rosta <and....@gmail.com <mailto:and....@gmail.com>> wrote:
There are 18 valid (morphological) codas: the 17 consonants and the empty coda.
I guess it's at least 17, because each of the 17 Cs can occur word-medially before another C that it can't occur word-initially before?
I don't understand the question.
Is it the case that each of the 17 Cs can occur at the start of a cluster that is licit in the middle of a word but not at the start of a word.
Unrelatedly, what's the basis for allowing CCC onsets? Does CLL expressly licence CCC in fu'ivla? The licitness of CCC onsets can't be derived from gismu, lujvo, cmavo. And does CLL forbid CCCC onsets in fu'ivla? (I'm being lazy, here, aren't I. If that's annoying, do remonstrate with me and I'll search online before asking.)
mu'o mi'e xorxes
--
2014-10-25 19:48 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:However, in general I don't see any problems with pronouncing {mastla}.Why {mastra} is a fine brivla but {mastla} should not be (morphological classes apart)?Because "tr" is a valid initial, while "tl" isn't. I wouldn't have a problem with making "tl" a valid initial, whereas I'm not happy with making "st" a valid coda.Why? What's wrong with it?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
Okay then. But then consonantal syllables are equally bad. Either it's Japanese CVCV intensive style or Serbian CCCC style but not somewhat Serbian, somewhat Japanese in different places.
(4) cmevla introduce dot-consonant and consonant-dot, and currently awhole lot of other things.I think restricting cmevla to standard syllables, vocalic andconsonantal, is basically rich enough. Indeed, it may be too flexiblein allowing V-V hiatus: "koreas." is made of valid syllables, but isIMO unlojbanic.
I would prefer that fu'ivla did not introduce consonantalsyllables. They were added to make type-3 fu'ivla possible, with theirCrC clusters, but that could be easily managed with CyrC instead, onlyrequiring a coda for y syllables (which are not currently used outsideof cmevla).Violates rule 4. Consonantal syllables suck, but I think we are stuckwith them.
On 9 Nov 2014 01:09, "John Cowan" <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
>
> Jorge Llambías scripsit:
> > I don't mind [the buffer vowel] appearing sporadically at the
> > phonological level, I just don't want it at the phonemic level because
> > I think it hinders more than helps.
>
> Emphatic agreement, substituting "phonetic level" for "phonological level".
I think you're both wrong, and that rather you should be saying that you don't mind it at the phonological level but don't want it at the morphophonological level -- a position that I would then agree with.
The phonemic status of the buffer vowel is evidenced by its realizational specification. It might better be thought of as the realization of an empty nucleus.
I suppose that there is indeed also a rather extreme and unnatural analysis in which the buffer vowel is part of one of the nonprevocalic allophones of each consonant phoneme, and that its lack of realizational overlap with vowel phonemes is coincidental.
--And.
Jorge Llambías scripsit:
> The vocalic syllables consist of all possible combinations of
> (morphological) onset-nucleus-coda.
This is not quite true. In particular, "y" can only occur in lujvo (and
cmevla), and in lujvo at least such syllables can only have the form Cy,
no clusters, no coda. That cuts back the count of syllables from 25,020
(counting "." and "'" as different) to 139*9*18 + 17*1*1 = 23,786 vocalic
syllables.
Rule 4 for fu'ivla in CLL Section 4.7 says
that "y" is forbidden in fu'ivla, so "bangrkore'a" can't be changed to
"bangyrkore'a". In practice, it wouldn't be a problem to pronounce
the former like the latter.
Indeed, if that was the *only* kind of "y" in fu'ivla (that is, allowing
the syllable types Cyl, Cym, Cyn, Cyr), I could live with it.
Jorge Llambías scripsit:
> That was the idea, yes. In fact only Cyr and Cyn. The -l- hyphen would now
> never be needed, since the final consonant of the rafsi becomes irrelevant
> for the choice of hyphen and so -yr- works for all cases except when the
> fu'ivla proper begins with r.
I was actually thinking of something more radical: replace all syllabic
consonants with yC throughout the language.
Jorge Llambías scripsit:
> That was the idea, yes. In fact only Cyr and Cyn. The -l- hyphen would now
> never be needed, since the final consonant of the rafsi becomes irrelevant
> for the choice of hyphen and so -yr- works for all cases except when the
> fu'ivla proper begins with r.
I was actually thinking of something more radical: replace all syllabic
consonants with yC throughout the language. Ivan Derzhanski argued for
this long ago, and I now think he was correct: they reduce readability
and make things more awkward. Syllabic consonants were introduced by
JCB, and I think we should have discarded them for Lojban; Loglan wound
up being more dependent on them, and writing them double.
> Type-3 fu'ivla become thus something like pseudo-lujvo, which is what they
> are anyway.
Indeed.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org
Uneasy lies the head that wears the Editor's hat! --Eddie Foirbeis Climo
2014-11-09 18:37 GMT+03:00 John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org>:
I was actually thinking of something more radical: replace all syllabic
consonants with yC throughout the language. Ivan Derzhanski argued for
this long ago, and I now think he was correct: they reduce readability
and make things more awkward. Syllabic consonants were introduced by
JCB, and I think we should have discarded them for Lojban; Loglan wound
up being more dependent on them, and writing them double.If this change can be easily explained (e.g. "replace all syllabic consonants to {yr}") then it's okay. Existing texts will be assumed to be synonymous to these amended words just like {klamygau} is a full synonym of {klagau} (except the sounding and the text itself).