WikiDiscuss

On Thursday 16 December 2004 18:51, Jorge "Llambías" wrote:
> --- wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> > Re: PEG Morphology Algorithm
> >
> > I have the rule:
> >
> > CVV-rafsi
>
> I don't know what happened to the rest of what I had written...
>
> Let's try again:
>
> CVV-rafsi <- consonant vowel h? vowel
>
> which allows for example {voe} as a rafsi. This is like
> {vo'e}, of rafsi form but not actually assigned.
>
> The alternative would be to make the rule:
>
> CVV-rafsi <- consonant (vowel h vowel / a i / a u / e i / o i)
>
> So for example {voebra} will then be rejected as a lujvo form,
> but allowed as a fuhivla.
>
> The choice has more drastic consequences for other words:
>
> If {voebra} is of lujvo form, then {zvoebra} fails the slinku'i
> test and so is not a valid fuhivla, otherwise, it is a valid fuhivla.
>
> Conversely, if {voebra} is a valid lujvo, so is {tozvoebra}.
> Otherwise {tozvoebra} breaks down as {to zvoebra}.
>
> My preference at the moment is to allow these pseudo-rafsi and
> pseudo-lujvo because that makes the rules simpler. Any other
> opinions?

valfendi does not allow {voe} as a rafsi, thus {voebra} is a fu'ivla,
{zvoebra} is also a fu'ivla, and {tozvoebra} breaks up. I put the whole table
of adjacent characters in it.

The same applies if the second of these three-letter groups has a non-lujvo
vowel pair: {kankua} is a fu'ivla, {ckankua} is a fu'ivla (it means "skunk"),
and {packankua} breaks up.

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