```On Monday, August 3, 2015, MorphemeAddict <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> You wrote: "There is!  The length of a morpheme is indicated by the number
> of consecutive 1s at the begin of the morpheme, plus 1.  So if the first
> bit is 0, the length is 1 bit quartet.  If the first two bits are 10, the
> length is 2 bit quartets.  If the first three bits are 110, the length is 3
> bit quartets.  And so on."
>
> Based on the examples, it seems to me that you meant "the number of
> consecutive 1s at the begin of the morpheme, plus 0" instead of "plus 1".

"Plus", not "followed by". A leading 0 means there are 0 consecutive
initial 1's, but it doesn't indicate 0 (=0+0) nybbles; it indicates 1
(=0+1).  Initial 10 includes one initial 1, indicating two (=1+1)
nybbles, and so on.

>
> stevo
>
> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > Hallo conlangers!
> >
> > On 03.08.2015 17:12, And Rosta wrote:
> >
> > R A Brown, On 03/08/2015 12:11:
> >>
> >>> If we use 'phonology' in its broader sense, then IMO talking
> >>> about the arbitrary division of a bit stream into quartets
> >>> as sixteen phonemes also does not make sense.  The smallest
> >>> significant unit in Plan B is a bit, i.e. it has only two
> >>> 'phonemes' - 0 1
> >>>
> >>
> >> IIUC, morphological forms would be built out of quartets.
> >>
> >
> > Yes.  The number of bits a morpheme is built of is *always* divisible by
> > 4.  Hence, the division of the bit stream into quartets is *not*
> > arbitrary.  It is relevant to the structure of the language.
> >
> > There's nothing in the structure of the language itself that reveals that
> >> the quartets are made of bits, is there?
> >>
> >
> > There is!  The length of a morpheme is indicated by the number of
> > consecutive 1s at the begin of the morpheme, plus 1.  So if the first bit
> > is 0, the length is 1 bit quartet.  If the first two bits are 10, the
> > length is 2 bit quartets.  If the first three bits are 110, the length
> is 3
> > bit quartets.  And so on.  Thus, there *is* something in the structure of
> > the language that reveals that the quartets are made of bits.
> >
> > --The bits seem to exist only in the inventor's imagination.
> >>
> >
> > Nope; see above.
> >
> > So it looks like the quartets are the minimal combinatorial unit. And
> >> hence it looks like there are sixteen phonemes.
> >>
> >
> > Yes (in the extended sense the word _phoneme_ is applied, e.g., to sign
> > languages); I think the bit quartets are the closest equivalent of the
> > phonemes of an ordinary human language.  Sure, they are not spoken
> sounds,
> > and each bit quartet has two *utterly different* spoken realizations
> which
> > would, in an ordinary human language, could not be considered a single
> > phoneme - but Plan B is *not* an ordinary human language!  Plan B is an
> > engelang whose primary realization is as a language of bit quartets, and
> > whose structure depends on these 16 units and their nature *as bit
> > quartets*.
> >
> > That each of the 16 bit quartets has an internal structure of bits does
> > not mean that they cannot be held to be phonemes; after all, human
> language
> > phonemes also have internal structure: they are collections of phonetic
> > features.  The spoken realization of Plan B which Prothero proposed is as
> > secondary to the structure of the language as the written representation
> is
> > secondary to a human natlang.
> >
> > Ray's argument for the *bits* being the "phonemes" of Plan B is not
> > entirely baseless - they are the smallest units; they do not carry
> meaning
> > in themselves; but when you change one bit, you change the meaning of the
> > whole utterance -  but I would rather compare the bits to phonetic
> features
> > as they do not occur *independently* but only as members of bit quartets.
> >
> > One of course arrives at a different results if one considers the
> phonemes
> > of the *spoken realization* of Plan B, as each bit quartet has a
> > consonantal and a vocalic realization which are wholly different (if it
> > wasn't for the internal structure of the vocalic realizations, that would
> > amount to *32* phonemes - two for each bit quartet)!  But that is
> actually,
> > as Ray said, a red herring, as Plan B is fundamentally a language of bit
> > quartets, and the spoken realization secondary.
> >
> > One must thus always be clear about *which* phonemes one is talking about
> > - those of the bit quartet language or those of the spoken realization!
> >
> > --
> > ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
> > http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
> > "Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1
> >
>

--