WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

>
> pc:
> > The traditional claim that a Lojban speech
> steam
> > can be uniquely partitioned into Lojban words
> > seems to be in trouble. the difficulties
> seem to
> > center on the "foreign" parts of the
> language,
> > cmevla and fuhivla — and lujvo insofar as
> they
> > impinge on the latter (though these last
> > questions seem to be getting solutions).
>
> They aren't so much difficulties as different
> positions
> on how strict or permissive the morphology
> should be.
> Once we decide that, the uniqueness of the
> partitioning
> of the stream is not under threat.

This is of course exactly what puts the whole
under threat: the fact that these issues have not
been decided — nor do there seem to be
principled ways to decide them (except tidy
algorithms, which may be enough). The claim
appears to have been false for Lojban up to now
and the aim is to figure out how best to make it
true.

>
> The main differences in criteria seem to be:
>
> 1) How do we represent a stressed syllable?
>
> The official prescription has: capital letters
> or a following
> syllable followed by a space. valfendi also
> allows a following
> syllable followed by doi/la/lai/la'i + cmene,
> camxes doesn't.

This is not a real problem with the claim, only
with how to represent the speech stream. Is it
clear that once stress is represented we alsways
know what it signifies?

> 2) Do we allow stress in syllables that
> shouldn't have it?
>
> valfendi allows some of these "secondary
> stresses" in brivla.
> camxes allows the last syllable of a brivla to
> be marked as stressed.
>
> 3) Which vowel combinations are allowed?
>
> camxes allows ai, au, ei, oi, (i/u) vowel in
> cmavo, cmene and fu'ivla, and no other vowel
> combinations
> anywhere.
>
> valfendi allows any combination in cmene and
> fu'ivla,
> but only ai, au, ei, oi in cmavo and (i/u)
> vowel only
> as a single cmavo by itself.
>
> camxes allows {iy} in cmene as the only vowel
> combination
> with y. valfendi allows any combination with y
> in cmene
> and fu'ivla.
>
>
> > One possibility for relieving this latest
> problem
> > is to replace significant absences (pauses)
> by
> > significant presences, a unique sound or
> mark.
> ...
> > What can go between a /iy/ and a /uy/? Any
> > phonologically legal Lojban string speech
> string,
> > that is, one that contains no illegal vowel
> or
> > consonant clusters (nor /iy/ and /uy/ of
> course).
>
> {la iy anything uy} is similar to
> {la'o any-word anything any-word}, although
> this
> last one requires pauses.

Yes; the difference is only in terms of possible
roles (and the simpler markers).

> I suppose the initial {.iy} will require a
> glottal stop
> too, otherwise {la iy ...} and {lai iy ...}
> would be
> practically indistinguishable.

Of course; the glottal stop between vowels in
different words is phonologically automatic
(well, should be, though even here some speakers
manage to screw up by using variants that their
interlocutors don't recognize as pauses).

> > whole is taken as a block. This block can be
> > used other than as the core of a cmene
> sumti.
> > In particular, it can be inserted as a unit
> what
> > is otherwise lujvo construction (with some
> > adjustments probably rerquired, but certainly
> > fewer restrictions than now are involved in
> > fuhivla — apparently just a glue between
> vowel
> > finals and /iy/ and /uy/ and vowel initials).
> I
> > think that the only limitation is that the
> block
> > can not be compound-final, which would mean
> that
> > the pattern of many fuhivla (which went
> agains
> > the usual Lojban modifier-modified anyhow)
> would
> > have to be changed to put the category last.
>
>
> I am preparing an addition along these lines,
> by allowing
> cmene-rafsi, which are just any cmene followed
> by -iy.
> So for example the rafsi for {djan} would be
> {djaniy-}. These
> rafsi, like fuhivla-rasi, can only be preceded
> by y-rafsi
> (four-letter rafsi or CVC-y rafsi or
> fuhivla-rafsi or other
> cmene-rafsi). And y has to be disallowed in
> cmene.

Yes, this would work as well, though it leaves
the (merely practical perhaps) cmene problems
untouched and is slightly less general otherwise.
It maybe more feasible since less radical. It
certainly is desirable in some form or other.