slinku'i: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
The '''''slinku'i''' test'' ('''le valslinku'i cipra''' in Lojban) refers to the test for [[type 4 fu'ivla]] being morphologically valid. Words that fail the test are called [[slinku'i]], as the word "slinku'i" fails the test. This rule applies mostly to [[type 4 fu'ivla]], which have to be very careful not to cause any morphological conflicts, they become ambiguous if certain syllables come before them. For example, if you say '''*pa slinku'i''', it becomes the lujvo '''paslinku'i''' ("robe-chain-caretaker"). | The '''''slinku'i''' test'' ('''le valslinku'i cipra''' in Lojban) refers to the test for [[type 4 fu'ivla]] being morphologically valid. Words that fail the test are called [[slinku'i]], as the word "slinku'i" fails the test. This rule applies mostly to [[type 4 fu'ivla]], which have to be very careful not to cause any morphological conflicts, they become ambiguous if certain syllables come before them. For example, if you say '''*pa slinku'i''', it becomes the lujvo '''paslinku'i''' ("robe-chain-caretaker"). | ||
<noinclude> | <noinclude> | ||
[[File:Slinky.jpg|thumb| | [[File:Slinky.jpg|thumb|slinkuui]] | ||
==History== | ==History== | ||
This word was originally born in [[Loglan]] where it had the somewhat more reasonable meaning "past-line-related" and was glossed "ancestor" (a typical Loglan style lujvo). A | This word was originally born in [[Loglan]] where it had the somewhat more reasonable meaning "past-line-related" and was glossed "ancestor" (a typical Loglan-style lujvo). A competing hypothesis is that '''*slinku'i''' was originally proposed in Loglan as a fu'ivla to refer to Slinky, a springy toy<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slinky</ref>. | ||
Currently in Lojban {{jvs| | (The possible meaning of this word doesn't make any difference since fu'ivla don't <i>need</i> to have a source language, though it helps. Currently in Lojban {{jvs|slinkuui}}, which is valid, denotes ''slinky toy''.) | ||
==What is the easiest way to | ==What is the easiest way to detect slinku'i failure?== | ||
* Remove one | |||
Here are three ways: | |||
* Remove one consonant from the beginning of the word. If the result is something that could end a lujvo, then the original word is a slinku'i. | |||
* Put an arbitrary CV sequence (where C is any consonant and V is any vowel) on the front and see if the result looks like a lujvo. | * Put an arbitrary CV sequence (where C is any consonant and V is any vowel) on the front and see if the result looks like a lujvo. | ||
* Ask a [ | * Ask a [http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/camxes.html parser] if the word is valid. Parsers that implement the correct morphology will show that the word is invalid. | ||
For example, removing the 's' from '''slinku'i''' yields '''linku'i''', which is a valid lujvo. Since a lujvo can be composed of a rafsi plus another lujvo, '''slinku'i''' fails the test. This same process can be applied to determine that the word '''tcalfe''' fails the test: if we remove the 't', then we are left with '''calfe''', an undefined gismu, and since gismu can end lujvo (e.g. the lujvo '''terdatni'''), '''tcalfe''' fails the test. | For example, removing the 's' from '''slinku'i''' yields '''linku'i''', which is a valid lujvo. Since a lujvo can be composed of a rafsi plus another lujvo, '''slinku'i''' fails the test. This same process can be applied to determine that the word '''tcalfe''' fails the test: if we remove the 't', then we are left with '''calfe''', an undefined gismu, and since gismu can end lujvo (e.g. the lujvo '''terdatni'''), '''tcalfe''' fails the test. | ||
| Line 21: | Line 24: | ||
If we insert an arbitrary CV on the front of either '''slinku'i''' or '''tcalfe''', then the result is a lujvo. For example, '''paslinku'i''' and '''metcalfe'''. | If we insert an arbitrary CV on the front of either '''slinku'i''' or '''tcalfe''', then the result is a lujvo. For example, '''paslinku'i''' and '''metcalfe'''. | ||
Another version of the explanation: | |||
Why can't '''*fro'e''' be grammatical? The short answer is that '''kafro'e''' is considered a single word and since one might not use pauses inside '''*ka fro'e''' it would still be considered as '''kafro'e'''. This ambiguity cannot stand, so we disallow forms like '''*fro'e'''. | |||
* | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references />__NOTOC__ | <references />__NOTOC__ | ||
</noinclude> | </noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 05:30, 8 December 2015
 | The formatting of this page has been checked for following the guidelines of le uitki. |
- slinku'i
- A hypothetical borrowed word, which would not be legal because it could be interpreted as parts of other words in some contexts.
The slinku'i test (le valslinku'i cipra in Lojban) refers to the test for type 4 fu'ivla being morphologically valid. Words that fail the test are called slinku'i, as the word "slinku'i" fails the test. This rule applies mostly to type 4 fu'ivla, which have to be very careful not to cause any morphological conflicts, they become ambiguous if certain syllables come before them. For example, if you say *pa slinku'i, it becomes the lujvo paslinku'i ("robe-chain-caretaker").
History
This word was originally born in Loglan where it had the somewhat more reasonable meaning "past-line-related" and was glossed "ancestor" (a typical Loglan-style lujvo). A competing hypothesis is that *slinku'i was originally proposed in Loglan as a fu'ivla to refer to Slinky, a springy toy[1].
(The possible meaning of this word doesn't make any difference since fu'ivla don't need to have a source language, though it helps. Currently in Lojban slinkuui, which is valid, denotes slinky toy.)
What is the easiest way to detect slinku'i failure?
Here are three ways:
- Remove one consonant from the beginning of the word. If the result is something that could end a lujvo, then the original word is a slinku'i.
- Put an arbitrary CV sequence (where C is any consonant and V is any vowel) on the front and see if the result looks like a lujvo.
- Ask a parser if the word is valid. Parsers that implement the correct morphology will show that the word is invalid.
For example, removing the 's' from slinku'i yields linku'i, which is a valid lujvo. Since a lujvo can be composed of a rafsi plus another lujvo, slinku'i fails the test. This same process can be applied to determine that the word tcalfe fails the test: if we remove the 't', then we are left with calfe, an undefined gismu, and since gismu can end lujvo (e.g. the lujvo terdatni), tcalfe fails the test.
If we insert an arbitrary CV on the front of either slinku'i or tcalfe, then the result is a lujvo. For example, paslinku'i and metcalfe.
Another version of the explanation:
Why can't *fro'e be grammatical? The short answer is that kafro'e is considered a single word and since one might not use pauses inside *ka fro'e it would still be considered as kafro'e. This ambiguity cannot stand, so we disallow forms like *fro'e.