Talk:morphology: vowels

Posted by pycyn on Wed 23 of Feb., 2005 18:55 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> > We already use many names with consonant + > (i/u) + vowel: > pier, nuiork/niuiork, buenosaires, ekuador, > eduard, uiliam, > xuan, and many more. I don't think it's > feasible to disallow > them. (There are also fu'ivla that use these: > mandioka, > samcrniame, malminiata...) > > I also think things like {aa} and {iaa} should > go together, > either both allowed or both disallowed, even if > the aa group > in the same pair from the left in one case but > not in the > other. > > One possible restriction could be to disallow > the sequences > aa, ae, ao, ea, ee, eo, eu, oa, oe, oo, ou > everywhere, > whether or not they fall in a pair from the > left. This would > means things like {stagrleoxari} would have to > be changed > to {stagrle'oxari} for example. I understand > John C. would > be in favor of this restriction, whereas Pierre > prefers to allow > them. > > The alternatives I would consider are: > > 1- No restrictions on vowel clusters. > > 2- Any vowel sequence is allowed except for > sequences > containing aa, ae, ao, ea, ee, eo, eu, oa, oe, > oo, ou. > > 3- Something else. > > Anybody else has an opinion one way or the > other? >

Since this all about borrowings and only remotely about Lojban, I would say "if it occurs to be borrowed, then allow it in the borrowing. It is easier to just borrow something whole for that occasion of use than to go through some reductive process to make it Lojban (with native speakers of Lojban, of course, some reduction would be automatic, but then, they wouldn't need to do much borrowing). If the word wins a pro0per place in Lojban, there will have been plenty of time to trim it down appropriately (if changes are really needed).

Score: 0.00 Vote:

1 2 3 4 5

Posted by xorxes on Wed 23 of Feb., 2005 18:56 GMT posts: 1912

> Since this all about borrowings and only remotely > about Lojban,

I consider morphological fu'ivla an integral part of Lojban, but this is really beside the point. What we need to decide is which wordforms will be validated by the parser as forms quotable with {zo}. Whether we call such forms Lojban-words, semi-Lojban-words, remotely-Lojban-words or whatever else does not matter.

> I would say "if it occurs to be > borrowed, then allow it in the borrowing. It is > easier to just borrow something whole for that > occasion of use than to go through some reductive > process to make it Lojban (with native speakers > of Lojban, of course, some reduction would be > automatic, but then, they wouldn't need to do > much borrowing).

Some reductive process will always be necessary in any case. The Spanish word "pato" for example cannot be borrowed without changes because in Lojban it breaks as two words {pa to}.

If the word wins a pro0per > place in Lojban, there will have been plenty of > time to trim it down appropriately (if changes > are really needed).

But trim it down to what forms? That's what we have to define.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo

Score: 0.00 Vote:

1 2 3 4 5

Posted by pycyn on Thu 24 of Feb., 2005 01:45 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> > --- John E Clifford wrote: > > Since this all about borrowings and only > remotely > > about Lojban, > > I consider morphological fu'ivla an integral > part > of Lojban, but this is really beside the point.

I suppose they are now. I tend to live in a better world where there never were fuhivla, borrowing were clearly labe;lled as such, and new words were fairly easy to make along existing guidelines. Within minutes after the possibility of fuhivla arose, there were dozens of them and the number keeps expanding in spoite of there being zero evidence that any of them are needed. since the old borrowing device is always still available (it is not an ideal device, but it will serve).

> What we need to decide is which wordforms will > be > validated by the parser as forms quotable with > {zo}.

Borrowings, of course, can never be quoted by {zo} so that whole area is by the way.

> Whether we call such forms Lojban-words, > semi-Lojban-words, > remotely-Lojban-words or whatever else does not > matter. > > > I would say "if it occurs to be > > borrowed, then allow it in the borrowing. It > is > > easier to just borrow something whole for > that > > occasion of use than to go through some > reductive > > process to make it Lojban (with native > speakers > > of Lojban, of course, some reduction would be > > automatic, but then, they wouldn't need to do > > much borrowing). > > Some reductive process will always be necessary > in > any case. The Spanish word "pato" for example > cannot > be borrowed without changes because in Lojban > it breaks > as two words {pa to}.

But it would not as a borrowing, since it would be insided "borrowed" markers ({la'o} or {zoi} as matters now stand). the problem only arises if you try to use borrowings directly into Lojban, which no one has suggested s far.

> > If the word wins a pro0per > > place in Lojban, there will have been plenty > of > > time to trim it down appropriately (if > changes > > are really needed). > > But trim it down to what forms? That's what we > have to > define. > And on that, I stick to: if it was in the borrowing, use it. And not otherwise. A good deal of this discussion has centered on cases that there is no evidence actually occur and considerable indirect evidence that they do not: for a's in a row without an intervening consonant of any sort? four affricates in a row without an intervening vowel? clusters of more than five consonants, none of them syllabic? Where do these problems come from? As for "what can {zo} quote?," that is already in so much difficulty even when "word" is relatively clear as to make the whole concept of doubtful value (considered abstractly) — except as a good reason to do away with unmarked borrowing altogether.

Score: 0.00 Vote:

1 2 3 4 5

Posted by xorxes on Thu 24 of Feb., 2005 01:45 GMT posts: 1912

> A good > deal of this discussion has centered on cases > that there is no evidence actually occur and > considerable indirect evidence that they do not: > for a's in a row without an intervening consonant > of any sort?

"Laadan" is the name of a constructed language. Should {laadan} be accepted by the Lojban parser? (It currently is, becasue the "la" here is harmless.)

> four affricates in a row without an > intervening vowel? clusters of more than five > consonants, none of them syllabic? Where do > these problems come from?

>From the underspecified Lojban morphology.

> As for "what can {zo} > quote?," that is already in so much difficulty > even when "word" is relatively clear as to make > the whole concept of doubtful value (considered > abstractly) — except as a good reason to do away > with unmarked borrowing altogether.

No, we are very clear on what zo can quote by now: any cmavo-form except Y, any brivla-form, any cmevla-form, nothing else.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:

1 2 3 4 5

Posted by xorxes on Thu 24 of Feb., 2005 01:45 GMT posts: 1912

> No, we are very clear on what zo can quote by now: > any cmavo-form except Y, any brivla-form, any > cmevla-form, nothing else.

Oh, and "y bu", forgot that one.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

Score: 0.00 Vote:

1 2 3 4 5

Posted by pycyn on Thu 24 of Feb., 2005 01:47 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> > --- John E Clifford wrote: > > A good > > deal of this discussion has centered on cases > > that there is no evidence actually occur and > > considerable indirect evidence that they do > not: > > for a's in a row without an intervening > consonant > > of any sort? > > "Laadan" is the name of a constructed language. > Should {laadan} be accepted by the Lojban > parser? > (It currently is, becasue the "la" here is > harmless.)

Well, two ain't four, but I see that some would have a problem with it. But it is a real word we might want to borrow and we should be able to -- inside borrowing-markers of course. But if we come to talk about it a lot (see an old Loglan paper about AUI) we might naturalize it. The /la/ part is not a problem since there is no pause after it, unless the syllable transition gets misheard or misspoke. Of course it won't currently do aas a name, but that might change and we might want it as a brivla anyhow. In that case we have to do something about the final /n/ (assuming that doesn't change which unchnage seems almost certain). So we are down to {laadani} or {laada} (the stress in the original might help choosing here_ I say /lAadan/ but I've not heard any other person pronounce it, especially not Elgin). That leaves the problem of the consonant cluster which presumably gets solved by some rule about what are now type IV fuhivla or wlse arbitrarily. This is, of course, not an answer to your question but hypotheticals are a bit tricky.

> > four affricates in a row without an > > intervening vowel? clusters of more than five > > consonants, none of them syllabic? Where do > > these problems come from? > > From the underspecified Lojban morphology. > > > As for "what can {zo} > > quote?," that is already in so much > difficulty > > even when "word" is relatively clear as to > make > > the whole concept of doubtful value > (considered > > abstractly) — except as a good reason to do > away > > with unmarked borrowing altogether. > > No, we are very clear on what zo can quote by > now: > any cmavo-form except Y, any brivla-form, any > cmevla-form, nothing else. > Apparently not every brivla form since you seem to be going round and round about fuhivla at least and perhaps derivatively about some lujvo. Oh, you mean what classes of things need to work.

Score: 0.00 Vote:

1 2 3 4 5

Posted by pycyn on Thu 24 of Feb., 2005 01:47 GMT posts: 2388

wrote:

> > --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > > No, we are very clear on what zo can quote by > now: > > any cmavo-form except Y, any brivla-form, any > > > cmevla-form, nothing else. > > Oh, and "y bu", forgot that one. > That is by fiat a cmavo form different from Y. > > > > > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. > Learn more. > http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 > > >

Score: 0.00 Vote:

1 2 3 4 5

Re: Morphology: vowels

Posted by xorxes on Thu 24 of Feb., 2005 21:04 GMT posts: 1912

vowel = a / e / i / o / u rising-diphthong = ai / au / ei / oi falling-diphthong = ia / ie / ii / io / iu / ua / ue / ui / uo / uu

A vowel sequence is allowed if it consists of:

1- any number of rising diphthongs, possibly followed by a single vowel.

2- any number of falling diphthongs, possibly followed by "i" if the last diphthong ends in "a", "e" or "o", or by "u" if the last diphthong ends in "a".

Every other vowel sequence is disallowed.

Would that work?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote:

1 2 3 4 5

Posted by xorxes on Fri 25 of Feb., 2005 02:55 GMT posts: 1912

I wrote: > vowel = a / e / i / o / u > rising-diphthong = ai / au / ei / oi > falling-diphthong = ia / ie / ii / io / iu / ua / ue / ui / uo / uu > > A vowel sequence is allowed if it consists of: > > 1- any number of rising diphthongs, possibly followed by > a single vowel. > > 2- any number of falling diphthongs, possibly followed by "i" > if the last diphthong ends in "a", "e" or "o", or by "u" if the > last diphthong ends in "a". > > Every other vowel sequence is disallowed.

I notice that this is very similar to the vowel restrictions John is proposing:

..iaia is allowed in both systems, but I also allow iaiai ..auaua is allowed in both systems (although I treat it as {.au,au,a} and John as {.a,ua,ua}), but I also allow .auau

If John would allow a diphthong to have a glide onset, the two systems would practically agree (except for a little detail, which I would rather do as in John's system than as in mine.)

Then there are the restrictions when following a consonant or h, which I did not go into.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:

1 2 3 4 5

Posted by Anonymous on Sat 26 of Feb., 2005 02:29 GMT

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:04:31 -0800, [email protected] wrote: > rising-diphthong = ai / au / ei / oi > falling-diphthong = ia / ie / ii / io / iu / ua / ue / ui / uo / uu

You seem to have those labels the wrong way around, according to my understanding of "rising diphthong"/"falling diphthong" and also according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphthong : "Falling diphthongs are stressed on the first element; raising diphthongs on the second." (Though I've only seem them called "rising", not "raising"; I imagine this may be an error.)

mu'o mi'e .filip. --

Philip Newton

Score: 0.00 Vote:

1 2 3 4 5