WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: Hesitation

posts: 14214
Use this thread to discuss the BPFK Section: Hesitation page.
posts: 14214

OK, so what do we do about ".y."?

I'm of the opinion (caused by xorxes' arguments) that it should be as extragramattical (sp?) as it can possibly be. It is ridiculous to assert that someone who says "zo .y. pavyseljirna" is actually saying "zo .y. cu pavyseljirna".

I think that ".y." should be treated a pure whitespace everywhere except before a "bu". And, frankly, I'd rather get rid of that, too, so that if you want to talk about ".y." you have to say "zoi zoi .y. zoi". For the letter we could say "depsna bu" or something. It'd be nice to drop ".y'y." as well at that point, and say that "y" can only appear inside words; the letter could be "jbini bu" or something.

Huh. It appears that Lojban has no gismu for "vowels". Anyways.

I'd like to know how much support there is for either of these ideas. Repeating:

1. .y. is ignored as whitespace everywhere except before a "bu".

2. .y. is ignored absolutely everywhere; if we're going to do that we might as well drop the one other word in the language (.y'y.) that begins or ends with .y. as well for morphological simplicity.

Once I know if either of these might pass a vote, I'll get seriously to work on the magic words.

-Robin

posts: 1912


> 2. .y. is ignored absolutely everywhere; if we're going to do that we might
> as well drop the one other word in the language (.y'y.) that begins or ends
> with .y. as well for morphological simplicity.

There are at least 17 other words that end with 'y', but {y} and {y'y}
are the only ones that begin with it. I don't remember the status of
things like {by'y} or {bu'y}, hopefully they are outlawed absolutely
and forever.

I'd vote for this option.

mu'o mi'e xorxes





__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com




posts: 14214

On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 03:48:08PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> > 2. .y. is ignored absolutely everywhere; if we're going to do
> > that we might as well drop the one other word in the language
> > (.y'y.) that begins or ends with .y. as well for morphological
> > simplicity.
>
> There are at least 17 other words
> that end with 'y',

<blink />

Like *what*? Oh, like by, cy, dy, etc. Whoops.

> but {y} and {y'y} are the only ones that begin with it. I don't
> remember the status of things like {by'y} or {bu'y}, hopefully
> they are outlawed absolutely and forever.

So far as I know.

> I'd vote for this option.

Well, yeah, I kinda figured that. :-)

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/


On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:26:47 -0800, wikidiscuss@lojban.org
<wikidiscuss@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> 2. .y. is ignored absolutely everywhere; if we're going to do that
> we might as well drop the one other word in the language (.y'y.)
> that begins or ends with .y. as well for morphological simplicity.

Not sure whether my vote counts, but I'd find this acceptable.

> It'd be nice to drop ".y'y." as well at that point, and say that "y"
> can only appear inside words

Or, I presume, at the end of a word (as opposed to the beginning).

mu'o mi'e .filip.
--

Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>



On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:

> 1. .y. is ignored as whitespace everywhere except before a "bu".

Absolutely support.

> 2. .y. is ignored absolutely everywhere; if we're going to do that we might
> as well drop the one other word in the language (.y'y.) that begins or ends
> with .y. as well for morphological simplicity.

I almost entirely support this. My only misgiving is that it does invalidate
usage (specifically, any usage of .y.bu anywhere would now mean something
completely different). I also wonder whether removing .y'y. would be
worthwhile--as mentioned, it's far from the only word ending with y, and as far
as I know (can someone correct me on this?) y is also valid at the begining of
cmene and type-4 fu'ivla (hmmm, vlatai seems to think it's not valid in
fu'ivla, but is in cmene).

I wonder what the usage of {ybu} vs {y bu} is, and whether we could allow the
former and eliminate the latter? But on the whole, yes, get rid of it
everywhere (and even {.y'y.} if you have to).
--
Adam Lopresto
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.


posts: 14214

Will respond to rest later.

On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 09:40:55AM -0600, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
> I also wonder whether removing .y'y. would be worthwhile--as
> mentioned, it's far from the only word ending with y, and as far
> as I know (can someone correct me on this?) y is also valid at the
> begining of cmene and type-4 fu'ivla (hmmm, vlatai seems to think
> it's not valid in fu'ivla, but is in cmene).

Oh, dude, you *must* be joking. Can someone research this carefully
and get back to us with chapter and verse? Pretty please?

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/


On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> Will respond to rest later.
>
> On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 09:40:55AM -0600, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
>> I also wonder whether removing .y'y. would be worthwhile--as
>> mentioned, it's far from the only word ending with y, and as far
>> as I know (can someone correct me on this?) y is also valid at the
>> begining of cmene and type-4 fu'ivla (hmmm, vlatai seems to think
>> it's not valid in fu'ivla, but is in cmene).
>
> Oh, dude, you *must* be joking. Can someone research this carefully
> and get back to us with chapter and verse? Pretty please?

..o'anai, turns out y isn't valid *anywhere* in a fu'ivla. (Chapter 4, section
7, number 4 in the first list)

4) cannot contain ``y'', although they may contain syllabic pronunciations of
Lojban consonants;

Chapter 4, section 9, says of cmene


2)
They may contain the letter y as a normal, non-hyphenating vowel. They are
the only kind of Lojban word that may contain the two diphthongs ``iy'' and
``uy''.

Which I would interpret to mean (unless someone can find contradiction) that,
for instance, {.ylkec.} is a valid cmene.
--
Adam Lopresto
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

Perilous to us all are the devices of an art deeper than we possess ourselves.
--Gandalf


posts: 14214

On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 11:30:54AM -0600, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
> .o'anai, turns out y isn't valid *anywhere* in a fu'ivla.
> (Chapter 4, section 7, number 4 in the first list)

I wouldn't be ashamed of that mistake; I'm quite shocked by this
rule myself. I wonder where it comes from.

> Chapter 4, section 9, says of cmene
>
> 2) They may contain the letter y as a normal, non-hyphenating
> vowel. They are the only kind of Lojban word that may contain the
> two diphthongs ``iy and ``uy.

Those appear to be the only dipthongs that can be used with 'y'.

> Which I would interpret to mean (unless someone can find
> contradiction) that, for instance, {.ylkec.} is a valid cmene.

I see no reason to disagree. In which case, words starting with 'y'
aren't nearly as much a special case as I thought, so you all can
certainly ignore everything I said about .y'y.

So, my new question is:

1. Should we make .y. extra-grammatical everywhere except before
bu?

2. Should we make .y. extra-grammatical absolutely everywhere?

Both changes *DO* affect usage, as far as I know.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/


posts: 14214

On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 09:40:55AM -0600, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
>
> >1. .y. is ignored as whitespace everywhere except before a "bu".
>
> Absolutely support.
>
> >2. .y. is ignored absolutely everywhere; if we're going to do
> >that we might as well drop the one other word in the language
> >(.y'y.) that begins or ends with .y. as well for morphological
> >simplicity.
>
> I almost entirely support this. My only misgiving is that it does
> invalidate usage (specifically, any usage of .y.bu anywhere would
> now mean something completely different).

But so does the first one; people *have* said "zo .y.". Here's some
stuff from my test sentences file; these are all from IRC, and hence
real usage.

Some of them, however, are categorically invalid ("zo .ybu", for
example).

mu'i ma do ciska pilno zo y

mi pilno zo y fi le selciska

..ua lo cmene ka'e vasru zo .ybu .i mi ca tcidu

to la xod. na tugni gi'e cusku le merko zei zo .y. toi

le cuksu noi ca'a cusku zo .y.

..iku'i frili fa le nu se snuti tu'a zo .y.

However, I certainly believe that dropping "zo .y." is a vastly
smaller change than dropping ".y. bu". Dropping "zo .y." would
require people to use zoi to talk about a Lojban word, though, which
is a bit... odd. I do think it's better than what we have now,
though, in terms of user friendliness.

Actually, one could use {lu .y. li'u} or {lo'u .y. le'u}. These are
both "cheating", since .y. is extragrammatical and should be
ignored, but a non-obnoxious listener could probably handle it.

The other work around being "le sance po depsna bu" or, better in
fact, "lo depsna" (assuming x1 of despna is the hesitation sound
itself; I haven't properly defined it yet).

> I wonder what the usage of {ybu} vs {y bu} is, and whether we
> could allow the former and eliminate the latter?

We cannot, no. Not without changing drastically the way Lojbanic
morphology works, and likely not for the better.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/


posts: 14214

On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 10:03:52AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
if we dropped %22zo .y.
> The other work around being "le sance po depsna bu" or, better in
> fact, "lo depsna" (assuming x1 of despna is the hesitation sound
> itself; I haven't properly defined it yet).

I'm sorry, those don't work to talk about the word ".y.", but {lo
depsna valsi} and friends do.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/


Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
> On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 11:30:54AM -0600, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
> > .o'anai, turns out y isn't valid *anywhere* in a fu'ivla.
> > (Chapter 4, section 7, number 4 in the first list)
>
> I wouldn't be ashamed of that mistake; I'm quite shocked by this
> rule myself. I wonder where it comes from.

The desire to use y as glue in creating luvjo that contain fu'ivla. That
didn't work, so we tried using iy instead. That didn't work either,
so we finally adopted zei and stopped trying to screw with the morphology.
Conservatism said not to go back and allow y in fu'ivla.

--
Mark Twain on Cecil Rhodes: John Cowan
"I admire him, I freely admit it, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and when his time comes I shall http://www.reutershealth.com
buy a piece of the rope for a keepsake." jcowan@reutershealth.com


Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> Oh, dude, you *must* be joking. Can someone research this carefully
> and get back to us with chapter and verse? Pretty please?

In cmene, y can be initial, and the diphthongs iy and uy (yuh and wuh
respectively) are allowed, as are V'y, y'V, and y'y.

I think that V'y and y'V are permitted experimental cmavo, but I'm not sure.

y is definitely forbidden in both type 3 and type 4 fu'ivla.

Just to weigh in:

1) I don't mind playing games with the word .y. to make it ignored,
but I do object to *@#$ing with the letter y, as if it were less in use
than it really is.

2) I could see changing zo .y. fu to mean zo fu.

3) I'd have to be convinced pretty strongly that .y.bu should die.

4) Anything more than that I veto.

mi'e .Y'ym

--
"And it was said that ever after, if any John Cowan
man looked in that Stone, unless he had a jcowan@reutershealth.com
great strength of will to turn it to other www.ccil.org/~cowan
purpose, he saw only two aged hands withering www.reutershealth.com
in flame." --"The Pyre of Denethor"


posts: 14214

On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 02:47:08PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
>
> > Oh, dude, you *must* be joking. Can someone research this
> > carefully and get back to us with chapter and verse? Pretty
> > please?
>
> In cmene, y can be initial, and the diphthongs iy and uy (yuh and
> wuh respectively) are allowed, as are V'y, y'V, and y'y.
>
> I think that V'y and y'V are permitted experimental cmavo, but I'm
> not sure.

Yes, I was full of shit. My bad.

> Just to weigh in:
>
> 1) I don't mind playing games with the word .y. to make it
> ignored, but I do object to *@#$ing with the letter y, as if it
> were less in use than it really is.

Yes, as I said, my bad.

> 2) I could see changing zo .y. fu to mean zo fu.

Cool.

> 3) I'd have to be convinced pretty strongly that .y.bu should die.

Yeah, I'm a lot less interested in that than I was.

> 4) Anything more than that I veto.

Half-veto, technically.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/


On Thursday 04 November 2004 18:26, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> Re: BPFK Section: Hesitation
> OK, so what do we do about ".y."?
>
> I'm of the opinion (caused by xorxes' arguments) that it should be as
> extragramattical (sp?) as it can possibly be. It is ridiculous to assert
> that someone who says "zo .y. pavyseljirna" is actually saying "zo .y. cu
> pavyseljirna".

If I say {zo .y. cmavo}, however long I hold out the {y}, I mean {zo cmavo},
but if I say {zo .Y. cmavo}, I mean that {y} is a cmavo, and don't hold it
out. I also stress the 'y' in lervla: {.Abu BY. CY. li'o KYbu. RY. li'o}.

phma
--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci


posts: 14214

On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 05:49:23PM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> On Thursday 04 November 2004 18:26, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> > Re: BPFK Section: Hesitation OK, so what do we do about ".y."?
> >
> > I'm of the opinion (caused by xorxes' arguments) that it should
> > be as extragramattical (sp?) as it can possibly be. It is
> > ridiculous to assert that someone who says "zo .y. pavyseljirna"
> > is actually saying "zo .y. cu pavyseljirna".
>
> If I say {zo .y. cmavo}, however long I hold out the {y}, I mean
> {zo cmavo}, but if I say {zo .Y. cmavo}, I mean that {y} is a
> cmavo, and don't hold it out.

You can't *possibly* be suggesting that a vocally stressed {y}
should be considered a real word, but a non-stressed {y} be
considered white space, can you?

I half-veto in advance, in case you are.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/


posts: 14214

On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 04:43:44PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 05:49:23PM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> > On Thursday 04 November 2004 18:26, wikidiscuss@lojban.org
> > wrote:
> > > Re: BPFK Section: Hesitation OK, so what do we do about ".y."?
> > >
> > > I'm of the opinion (caused by xorxes' arguments) that it
> > > should be as extragramattical (sp?) as it can possibly be. It
> > > is ridiculous to assert that someone who says "zo .y.
> > > pavyseljirna" is actually saying "zo .y. cu pavyseljirna".
> >
> > If I say {zo .y. cmavo}, however long I hold out the {y}, I mean
> > {zo cmavo}, but if I say {zo .Y. cmavo}, I mean that {y} is a
> > cmavo, and don't hold it out.
>
> You can't *possibly* be suggesting that a vocally stressed {y}
> should be considered a real word, but a non-stressed {y} be
> considered white space, can you?

Furthermore, how the hell do you even stress schwa? I mean, isn't
that just a *grunt* at that point?

-Robin


On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 16:49:03 -0800, Robin Lee Powell
<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> Furthermore, how the hell do you even stress schwa? I mean, isn't
> that just a *grunt* at that point?

Uh, the same way you stress any other vowel? Shwa is just a vowel.
Pronounce it more loudly and/or at a higher pitch, to name two popular
methods of accent.

mu'o mi'e .filip.
--

Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>



posts: 14214

On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 02:21:09PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 16:49:03 -0800, Robin Lee Powell
> <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > Furthermore, how the hell do you even stress schwa? I mean,
> > isn't that just a *grunt* at that point?
>
> Uh, the same way you stress any other vowel? Shwa is just a vowel.
> Pronounce it more loudly and/or at a higher pitch, to name two
> popular methods of accent.

Both of those sound like I'm having an orgasm.

Thanks, but no thanks.

-Robin


On Friday 05 November 2004 19:49, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > You can't *possibly* be suggesting that a vocally stressed {y}
> > should be considered a real word, but a non-stressed {y} be
> > considered white space, can you?

Only after {zo}, and we already have rules that change word boundaries
depending on which vowel is stressed.

> Furthermore, how the hell do you even stress schwa? I mean, isn't
> that just a *grunt* at that point?

The Albanians seem to do it, e.g. "është". English has some words too, such as
"crumbly" /krYmbli/.

phma
--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci


posts: 14214

I consider this section (Hesitation) open for voting, although it's kinda out in the cold since I'm not done any of the others.

Please do not take the fact that I just added voting boxes to all the other Magic Words sections to indicate anything about their completeness.

If anyone else wants a poll for one of their sections, now would be a good time.

-Robin

posts: 324

>zo pavyseljirna cu vasru .y. bu
I think this should be {zo pavyseljirna cu vasru me'o .y. bu}. As it stands, it means "The word 'unicorn' contains yttrium" (or whatever the letter 'y', used as a pronoun, stands for). -phma

posts: 1912


> Re: BPFK Section: Hesitation
> >zo pavyseljirna cu vasru .y. bu
> I think this should be {zo pavyseljirna cu vasru me'o .y. bu}. As it stands,
> it means "The word 'unicorn' contains yttrium" (or whatever the letter 'y',
> used as a pronoun, stands for). -phma

Right. {zo pavyseljirna cu vasru .y. bu} really means
"'pavyseljirna' contains it", where 'it' refers to something
of the y-gender. Probably {me'o y bu} itself would be
of y-gender, but the rules for establishing the BY-gender of
sumti other than the very basic cases are not clear. So, if
we are talking about {me'o y bu}, {y bu} could be used to
refer to {me'o y bu}. Since {zo pavyseljirna} is a word, and
words only contain letters, and the most likely letter to be
referred with the pronoun {y bu} is 'y', then the sentence
would be understandable, but {me'o y bu} is better. (Even with
something like {le blabi xirma} I hesitate among {by}, {xy}
and {by xy} when choosing the pronoun.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com




posts: 2388


wrote:

>
> > Re: BPFK Section: Hesitation
> > >zo pavyseljirna cu vasru .y. bu
> > I think this should be {zo pavyseljirna cu
> vasru me'o .y. bu}. As it stands,
> > it means "The word 'unicorn' contains
> yttrium" (or whatever the letter 'y',
> > used as a pronoun, stands for). -phma
>
> Right. {zo pavyseljirna cu vasru .y. bu} really
> means
> "'pavyseljirna' contains it", where 'it' refers
> to something
> of the y-gender. Probably {me'o y bu} itself
> would be
> of y-gender, but the rules for establishing the
> BY-gender of
> sumti other than the very basic cases are not
> clear. So, if
> we are talking about {me'o y bu}, {y bu} could
> be used to
> refer to {me'o y bu}. Since {zo pavyseljirna}
> is a word, and
> words only contain letters, and the most likely
> letter to be
> referred with the pronoun {y bu} is 'y', then
> the sentence
> would be understandable, but {me'o y bu} is
> better. (Even with
> something like {le blabi xirma} I hesitate
> among {by}, {xy}
> and {by xy} when choosing the pronoun.)
>
xorxes raises a nice point, which I have not seen
discussed, though I am sure it has been. In the
desperate hope of getting a usable anaphora
system, "gender" seems the only hope-- dividing
expressions into classes and then referring back
to expressions as being the relevant one of its
class. Since "natural gender" - masculine,
feminine, neuter; animate, inanimate; small round
things, large straight things; things owned by
the emperor, things drawn with camel-hair
brushes; and so on - are for the most part
hopelessly arbitrary (abstractions and boats are
feminine — even the James Forrestal; diminutives
are neuter; books but also the tallest mountain
in Africa are small things) and so requiring
learning each case separately and since Lojban
has not declensions or the like, the letters of
the words involved become the default
classifiers. And the first letters at that,
being the most obvious and (hopefully)memorable.
But when there are choices, which does one
choose? Is {le blabi zdani} to be anaphorized as
{zy} or {by} or {by zy}. The answer pretty
generally is the shortest that is distinctive,
preferring the modified to the modifier. So {zy}
if there are no other z words, but {by zy} (or
maybe just {by} if there are other houses in the
discussion — or other z words generally. And if
we get down to a context with {le blabi zdani}
and {le blanu zdani} and {le blaci zdani} we fall
back on baisc anaphora, literal repetition of as
much as is deistinctive: :{le blabi}, {le blanu}
and {le blaci}, unless there are other blue,
white and glass things around, in which case we
need full repetition. Messy but workable up to a
point — a more remote one than positional
systems, for example.


posts: 14214

On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 06:56:14AM -0800, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> Re: BPFK Section: Hesitation
> >zo pavyseljirna cu vasru .y. bu
> I think this should be {zo pavyseljirna cu vasru me'o .y. bu}. As
> it stands, it means "The word 'unicorn' contains yttrium" (or
> whatever the letter 'y', used as a pronoun, stands for). -phma

Fixed.

-Robin


Re: BPFK Section: Hesitation
OK, so what do we do about ".y."?

I'm of the opinion (caused by xorxes' arguments) that it should be as extragramattical (sp?) as it can possibly be. It is ridiculous to assert that someone who says "zo .y. pavyseljirna" is actually saying "zo .y. cu pavyseljirna".

I think that ".y." should be treated a pure whitespace everywhere except before a "bu". And, frankly, I'd rather get rid of that, too, so that if you want to talk about ".y." you have to say "zoi zoi .y. zoi". For the letter we could say "depsna bu" or something. It'd be nice to drop ".y'y." as well at that point, and say that "y" can only appear inside words; the letter could be "jbini bu" or something.

Huh. It appears that Lojban has no gismu for "vowels". Anyways.

I'd like to know how much support there is for either of these ideas. Repeating:

1. .y. is ignored as whitespace everywhere except before a "bu".

2. .y. is ignored absolutely everywhere; if we're going to do that we might as well drop the one other word in the language (.y'y.) that begins or ends with .y. as well for morphological simplicity.

Once I know if either of these might pass a vote, I'll get seriously to work on the magic words.

-Robin



Re: BPFK Section: Hesitation
>zo pavyseljirna cu vasru .y. bu
I think this should be {zo pavyseljirna cu vasru me'o .y. bu}. As it stands, it means "The word 'unicorn' contains yttrium" (or whatever the letter 'y', used as a pronoun, stands for). -phma