From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Dec 19 15:17:46 2002
Return-Path:
X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 19 Dec 2002 23:17:46 -0000
Received: (qmail 25596 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2002 23:17:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216)
by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2002 23:17:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.107)
by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Dec 2002 23:17:43 -0000
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:17:43 -0800
Received: from 200.69.2.52 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
Thu, 19 Dec 2002 23:17:43 GMT
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Bcc:
Subject: Re: [lojban] Lemma and conjecture
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 23:17:43 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Dec 2002 23:17:43.0571 (UTC) FILETIME=[D561E630:01C2A7B4]
From: "Jorge Llambias"
X-Originating-IP: [200.69.2.52]
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566
X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000
la pier cusku di'e
>Conjecture: If two lerpoi R and S which both lack 'y' are such that for all
>i
>R[i:i+1] is a valid initial consonant pair, valid consonant pair, valid
>lujvo
>diphthong, fa'u valid fu'ivla diphthong iff S[i:i+1], and R[i] is a vowel,
>consonant, fa'u y'ybu iff S[i] is, then R is a valid brivla iff S is,
>regardless of whether for some i R[i] is 'n', 'r', or 'l' and S[i] isn't.
>
>I am trying to prove the conjecture, but having trouble with words like
>{paske'usazri}, where removing the first rafsi results in {ke'usazri},
>which
>falls apart, while {ke'ursazri}, which is a lujvo, when {pas-} is added
>becomes {paske'ursazri}, which falls apart.
(Is the conjecture at all related to the lemma?)
I'm not sure what the status of {ke'unsazri} or {ke'upsazri} is.
Are they valid fu'ivla, because they can't be lujvo, or are they
not valid fu'ivla, because there are possible lujvo of the form
CVVC/CVCCV? If they are valid fu'ivla, then I can't see how the
conjecture could possibly be false. If they are not valid fu'ivla,
then obviously the conjecture is false.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail