Re: TECH: SE rafsi omitted in lujvo (was Re: dikyjvo, too, bites the dust)

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>]

Nora says that there actually would be resolution problems if we allowed hyphens
optionally where they are currently forbidden.  One reason that comes to mind
is the 2nd case of tosmabru failure which derives from the fact of the hyphen
being present:  CVCCVCyCCV has the CV at the beginning fall off when the CC
cluster in positions 3 and 4 is a permissible initial.  Thus, if you have
added the hyphen when not needed, you could force a tosmabru failiure that
is not necessary.

I don't know that permitting extra hyphenation in the first cluster, or in all
clusters if present in the first cluster would be a problem, but it seems
like it wouldn't allow enough improvement to be worthwhile.  What is clear
is that you cannot optionally include the hyphen in any condition, since the
hyphen can cause problems that would otherwise not be present in some cases.

I'm not sure I see the difference between your two cases of omission of
"se".  I am sure that in some cases there is indeed an error being made,
but I am also sure that in some there is an intentional abbrviation.  I think
it worthwhile to correct these for now, but we should note when they have
occurred so we can see if there is a pattern that would allow some of them
to remain, especially when the extra term causes one or two extra hyphens,
etc., and the "erroneous term" has no obvious other meaning, or even non-
obvious one.  I am equally sure that some of the exampkes of the first case
are indeed malrarna usages rather than abbreviations, and they should also
be reviewed.  I just know that "le'avla" is one where we have made such a
review and decided that the shortest is preferable, even if less aesthetic
by another principle.  I do agree that the place structure of an abbreviated
lujvo should be that of the unabbreviated form, and this should be true
even of the final-position cases that are retained as abbrevaitions, if any.
Indeed, I would say that the usefulness of the resulting place structure
might be a factor in deciding whether to permit a final position
abbreviation, since in many cases you'd ned up with the same place structure
but a different order, if you took the 'abbrevaiation' literally.

In other words, keep a list of these that you want to change - we'll probably
go along with you, but I think the examples should be looked at by more people
if only for educational value.

lojbab