[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge Llamb�as, On 30/08/2012 23:54:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:25 AM, And Rosta<and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote:Jorge Llamb�as, On 30/08/2012 03:16:On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:05 PM, And Rosta<and.rosta@hidden.email> wrote: Well, I'm just trying to keep it simple for now. Formalizing the rules for the proposed restrictions on vowel sequences would take some work, and the result will end up looking quite messy, whereas V('V)* is straightforfard.OK. I think my proposed restrictions on V sequences were pretty simple, but we don't need to deal with phonology for the time being.They are simple, but not trivial to formalize. They are similar to what I used for vowel sequences in Lojban, except I couldn't forbid ii and uu because they are already words, and I had the additional restriction that sequences ending in a semi-vowel could only end in ai, au, ei, oi, not in eu, iu, ou, ui. Basically S?V(SV)*S?, with V being (a | e | i | o | u) and S being (i | u), plus the restrictions on the final S. Formalizing the restrictions, simple as they are, can make the grammar look quite messy.
Bloody hell, if you worked on natural languages you wouldn't call that messy! Seriously, simplicity and elegance is great, other things being equal, but usability -- ergonomic efficacy -- is (IMO) the main thing. If you can state everything in a single formula, great; if not, just spell it out in as many statements as is necessary to state the rules; don't tailor the rules so that they can be captured in a single formula. I'm not saying you don't already agree with me on this; I'm just saying you're being very fastidious, very squeamish about a teensyweensy bit of mess... --And.