More text from the Bratfyd jbogirz

["Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!ctr.columbia.edu!shoulson>]

>From: CJ FINE <C.J.Fine@bradford.ac.uk>
>Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 11:17:25 BST
>X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

>> 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.

Aha.  Yes, that does make a difference, as does the fact that you didn't
say so.  Unless the reader knows the rules, you can't expect him to
understand you.  It's reasonable to assume that spaces come between but
never within words, but unless you say that brivla always have spaces after
them you can't expect the reader to work that out, and thus {tinoigligu'e}
will have an ambiguity that {tinoi gligu'e} does not.

>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

No, there's no reason.  In fact, they're not brivla.  They're selbri, but
really they're compound cmavo.  It's correct to write {pa no no moi} or
some such.  Note the lack of consonant clusters.  Personally, I find
{DA'amoi terBANsa} more natural than {da'Amoi terBANsa}, probably because
of application of da'amoi terbansa to the cmavo {da'a}

~mark