One of the design goals of lojban was the ability to parse texts morphologically without reference to a lexicon, just looking at the pattern of consonants, vowels, and hyphens.
In section 4.11 fu'ivla, requirement 3 on the forms allowed fu'ivla is unclear, when talking about a word not breaking down into cmavo/gismu/lujvo.
It sounds as if fu'ivla may not be composed of a sequence of existing words in today's lexicon, but I strongly suspect that what is meant is that the pattern of consonants, vowels, and hyphens in the fu'ivla may not allow reparsing, even with cmavo/gismu/lujvo that could be defined in the future so as to collide.
If my interpretation is correct, then the rule ought to refer to "existing or hypothetically permissable cmavo, gismu, and lujvo".
As an aside, the whole rule 3 could be shortened quite a bit by making the slinku'i test cover everything.
must not be any combination of existing or hypothetically permissible cmavo, gismu, or lujvo, even after any CV cmavo is prefixed to the front of the fu'ivla;
One of the design goals of lojban was the ability to parse texts morphologically without reference to a lexicon, just looking at the pattern of consonants, vowels, and hyphens. In section 4.11 fu'ivla, requirement 3 on the forms allowed fu'ivla is unclear, when talking about a word not breaking down into cmavo/gismu/lujvo. It sounds as if fu'ivla may not be composed of a sequence of existing words in today's lexicon, but I strongly suspect that what is meant is that the pattern of consonants, vowels, and hyphens in the fu'ivla may not allow reparsing, even with cmavo/gismu/lujvo that could be defined in the future so as to collide.
If my interpretation is correct, then the rule ought to refer to "existing or hypothetically permissable cmavo, gismu, and lujvo".
As an aside, the whole rule 3 could be shortened quite a bit by making the slinku'i test cover everything.