Re: More text from the Bratfyd jbogirz

[CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!bradford.ac.uk!C.J.Fine>]

>
>
> Um, just one thing, Colin, before I start reading your text.  While Lojban
> is supposed to be self-segmenting and uniquely resolvable, such resolution
> requires the stress, which is >not< represented by your method.

na go'i

I leave a space in two contexts:
1) An obligatory pause (which I also mark)
2) After every brivla

(It's true that I did not say this).
Since the purpose of da'amoi terbasna is to identify the end of every
brivla, this rule is sufficient.

 It's safe
> to string together cmavo as much as you like, but when you start throwing
> brivla into the works, it gets messy.  Consider the compound you wrote:
> {tinoigligu'e}.  This is actually ambiguous.  You intend it to be {ti noi
> gligu'e}, stressed as {ti noi gligU'e}.  But note that the {noi} may *not*
> have stress on it.  You can't tell that from what you wrote, and watch what
> happens if I read it with stress:  {tiNOIgligu'e} -> {ti noigli gu'e}.

So, following my rule, I would never write that thus - I would write
"tinoigli gu'e".

Incidentally, it seems to me that there is no necessity for number
brivla (-MOI) to have da'amoi terbasna, since phonologically they are
so'ocma - their syntactic status as brivla seems irrelevant to this
question. pinka xu

	Colin