Re: lo lerfu me'e zo y'y a zo y'y.bu

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

markl:
> i fi la and fa mi pu cusku di'e
> > > iji'a za'a loi jbonunsku cu'u piji'i le jboxelymri na'e vasru le
> > > denpa bu  iku'i po'o xu? do na'e pilno lo lerfu me'e zo y'y
> i la and spuda mi di'e
> > ja'a go'i i ku'i la mark culsn sarji lo da'i nu le lerfu
> > pohu zoi gy h gy ckaji la'e zoi gy "alloglyph"/"allograph" gy
> iji'a ja'o la and cu pilno lo lerfu me'e zo y'y.bu ijo ra ka'enai
> rivbi tu'a pilno

{tua} has complementation of selmao LAhE, I think. I wonder how
{tua pilno} parses. I guess you mean And uses the lerfu only when
it is unavoidable. That's true.

I don't know whether lerfu are emic or etic in nature. Is a lerfu
a member of an alphabet, or a visual mark?

> > The proposal to make {h} a standard allograph (or "alloglyph",
> > in Mark Shoulson's terminology) of {'} received quite a lost
> > of support when it was made, but did not become official.
> > I also follow the practise of omitting {h/'} when it is redundant.
> Seems to me that, if you are using {h} as an alloglyph for {'}, then
> you should try to use {h} in about the same places & with about the
> same frequency as other Lojbanists use {'}.
> The {'} apostrophe is under one of the (normally) weakest fingers on the
> QWERTY keyboard.  In cursive writing it either breaks the inkstream or
> must be added in retrospect.  The {h} does not suffer from these
> drawbacks.  I sympathize with those who prefer {h}, but I would prefer
> that the y'y lerfu, whatever its alloglyph, not be omitted altogether.

That is a widespread view. But the allogryphy and the omission are
independent of each other.

> In general, morphological redundancy in language can often be justified
> as a factor that offsets some difficulty.  Keeping the y'y or y'y.bu even
> when it seems redundant can be justified because its presence helps to
> mitigate what we might call the rafsi-cmavo anomaly.
> In practice, the anomaly involves nothing more serious than
> hesitating between two different meanings for a single phonological form.
> But what happens when the lerfu y'y or y'y.bu is omitted from the
> orthography?  Our hesitation over many forms must then cover four
> possible meanings, of which two may (if we're lucky) be rejected (after
> due consideration) as non-Lojbanic.  Two units of hesitation have become
> four.
> Dropping the redundant y'y or y'y.bu therefore squares the difficulty of
> navigating thru the rafsi-cmavo anomaly.  That's one reason why I, as a
> learner, would request that this lerfu not be dropped.

I'm baffled. What is the extra uncertainty caused by omitting the
yhybu?

> I admire the rafsi principle, which is elegantly & beautifully
> expressed in Lojban.

Even allowing for intersubjective variability, I find such sentiments
incredible.

---
And