lagleki
commented
3 years ago There is BPFK morphology but it differs from the cll one in some aspects
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 19:35 Wuzzy notifications@github.com wrote:
The morphology never has been really formalized, hasn't it?
While for e.g. gismu it's easy, it is not 100% clear which words are actually valid fu'ivla and cmevla. As a result, many parsers seem to disagree on what is a valid cmevla, and what isn't. That's a big problem.
I suggest to include a formal morpholgy in the CLL. Given that a formal grammar is one of Lojban's main “selling points”, I think this is pretty important.
The goal here is: Given a random string of Lojban characters, it should always be possible to unambigiously tell if that's a valid Lojban word or not, and if it is, what kind of word it is.
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/lojban/cll/issues/444, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AASNCEMRU23PHCO5IK5CSHTTCEB4NANCNFSM4YVQPYDQ .
The morphology never has been really formalized, hasn't it?
While for e.g. gismu it's easy, it is not 100% clear which words are actually valid fu'ivla and cmevla. As a result, many parsers seem to disagree on what is a valid cmevla, and what isn't. That's a big problem.
I suggest to include a formal morpholgy in the CLL. Given that a formal grammar is one of Lojban's main “selling points”, I think this is pretty important.
The goal here is: Given a random string of Lojban characters, it should always be possible to unambigiously tell if that's a valid Lojban word or not, and if it is, what kind of word it is.