Re: lujvo morphology

["R.M. Uittenbogaard" <reneuit@SCI.KUN.NL>]

Well, I am happy to see that some interesting reactions were given
to my last mail.

Trevor C. Hill <trevor@AMON-RA.RES.CMU.EDU> (TH) wrote:

TH> I am currently trying to learn lojban ...
TH> ... my friend (who is also learning it) ...

How lucky you are to have such a friend! My friends always look
strangely to me when I talk about Lojban.

TH> If it were decided that rafsi would automatically bind to the rafsi or
TH> gismu coming immediately after, and that lujvo must end in a gismu rather

The problem is actually that if no precautions are taken, it would not
be clear (in certain cases) whether a -CVV- string in speech ought to be
interpreted as a rafsi or a cmavo.

Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET> (LLG) wrote:

LLG> An r/n hypen is ONLY inserted after an initial CVV rafsi, and is not
LLG> permitted anywhere else.  (It is also not permitted in a CVVCCV lujvo, the
LLG> only CVV-initial lujvo that does not fall apart without it.)  In short,
LLG> if the r/n is either required or forbidden - never optional.  The same
LLG> is true of 'y' hyphens.

-y- hyphens are *not* optional? Hmmm... That rule missed me. I guess
that means that the lujvo "bav+lacpu" must contain a hyphen (although
the medial consonant pair is permissible), because otherwise it would fall
apart into "ba vlacpu" (which is "ba vla+cpu").

LLG> The tanru would be pronounced MLI-toi-NAN-du, whereas the lujvo is
LLG> pronounced mli-toi-NAN-du.  It is of course important to not put secondary
LLG> stress on "mli" in the lujvo, relative to "toi".

You are right, although I am afraid this difference is a rather small one.

LLG> It is a perfectly acceptable dialect in the language to use just the full
LLG> gismu and 4-letter+y rafsi, to make all lujvo.  These words are called the
LLG> "fully-expanded" form and this techniques is used in much conversation for
LLG> making nonce lujvo, since few of us know more than a minimal number of
LLG> short rafsi.

RU > Probably, the lujvo morphology rules are all settled and fixed at this
RU > stage in development, and my opinion will not make much of a change.
LLG> This is of course true.  But as a Lojban user, you can come close to your
LLG> proposal by using only expanded forms.

Yes, but many people will still use short rafsi in written text, which
requires people who do not know those rafsi to look them up every time.

LLG> I understand.  However, throughout the history of the project, there has
LLG> been a fear that excessively long lujvo would be so unaesthetically
LLG> pleasing to people actually using the language (as opposed to those talking
LLG> about using it) that some sort of haphazard abbreviation or shortening
LLG> would take place if a planned approach were not allowed for.  ...
LLG> Therefore, good design in to make sure that Zipf's Law is satisfied
LLG> before we start, insofar as is possible.

You have certainly got a good point there. I didn't think of that.
It was a good idea to ensure a systematic way of handling this before
an unsystematic shortening would be made up by Lojban-speakers. It is
important that the language be used as precisely as possible.

On the other hand, other aspects of Lojban will certainly be used
differently by different speakers, which will have different opinions on
how to express certain things, e.g. I have seen (and can think of) the
following constructions:

- sei la rik. cusku se'u mi cliva
- la rik. cusku lu mi cliva li'u
- la rik. lu mi cliva li'u
- cu'u la rik. lu mi cliva li'u

Aren't some of these expressions ungrammatical? Still, they are being used.

Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM> (CB) wrote:

CB> I personally have only learned a few of the rafsi,

So did I.

CB> and I generally
CB> make lujvo with the 4-letter forms and -y-.  Not because I oppose
CB> rafsi but just because it's too much to memorize.  I pick up more
CB> of them as I go along.

Right. That is actually my major problem with rafsi.

CB> This is the sort of thing that usage is likely to decide regardless
CB> of LLG's wishes -- I bet rafsi that are not used productively or
CB> I bet's no problem with rafsi like "-gau" for
CB> gasnu, "-pre" for prenu, etc.  They're short and convenient and
CB> better than attatching the 4/5 letter form.

You are right about that. I prefer saying "ma'oste" instead of
"cmavyliste"!

Greetings,

Rene Uittenbogaard

e'u doi lobypli ko na pilno lei nandu rafsi
i ko pilno lei mutce sampu rafsi po'o

(Yes, I know lobypli is a short-form lujvo, but I guess it is
well-known enough, that's whyI use it).