From bpfk-list+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDJ4qDmBBoEC5ldew@googlegroups.com Wed Oct 27 07:04:18 2010 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PB6bm-00067r-T5; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:04:17 -0700 Received: by wyb38 with SMTP id 38sf356673wyb.16 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:04:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=EykaORo1CCeRi/dNAqu7vKZwE5KiNXNS2p34LKIVucs=; b=UIrzs6avgUX+2Vo0227dtixBAWvLU6PYfjG1r5av//VtseLw3CWvPuhE5MPmpRP70Z UuhMns4UE1Lrxf61EQAaw9cZcoWjwUh/XmdUozvJp9i8QP00AfLSd+k1s0DcN3UJgJsX QkFZIf90a8fPHOqWV8Yy9R2+47KK4PXOjP1ik= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=ix9aaFMVSnAY8fwLVTbNOQPcLU2U++T40t9yLA1H5ktAcELFw24gJnVO7+G/ri0QN9 R/YGKaNC7YDKZfEHE9LrBybArlJfI9nsOAvyFgNgctmJ8VUAR0bJYcc6qsP9oebz+RTK /gdd365uKxVfFZQ86FYBwLKIFzHsvimouYQqE= Received: by 10.216.237.73 with SMTP id x51mr1371743weq.19.1288188233900; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:03:53 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.242.202 with SMTP id i52ls372412wer.0.p; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:03:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.37.211 with SMTP id y61mr481269wea.14.1288188232795; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:03:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.37.211 with SMTP id y61mr481268wea.14.1288188232757; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:03:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f49.google.com (mail-ww0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id m20si2902867weq.3.2010.10.27.07.03.51; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:03:51 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.49; Received: by wwb17 with SMTP id 17so100524wwb.6 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:03:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.128.202 with SMTP id l10mr9299803wbs.178.1288188230581; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:03:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.32.140 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Oct 2010 07:03:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20101026134742.01f61b78@cox.net> References: <20101026061117.GJ1105@digitalkingdom.org> <20101026063822.GK1105@digitalkingdom.org> <20101026063932.GL1105@digitalkingdom.org> <7.0.1.0.2.20101026134742.01f61b78@cox.net> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:03:50 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] CLL errata check: lujvo scoring From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.49 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Another way of presenting the same scores is: CVV: +2918 CCV: +2929 CVC: +2949 CVhV: +3438 CVVr: +4018 CVCy: +4048 CCVCV: +4968 CVCCV: +4988 CCVCy: +5058 CVCCy: +5078 Since the algorithm already uses a "type-score" table anyway, I don't really see the point of using anything other than a single type-score table. Even more clear would be: CVV: +1 CCV: +2 CVC: +3 CVhV: +4 CVVr: +4 CVCy: +5 CCVCV: +6 CVCCV: +6 CCVCy: +6 CVCCy: +6 which gives the same winning result. (The ones with the same score never compete against one another.) But I suppose a score that goes into the thousands sounds more impressive. Or in human terms: "Fewest letters wins, and as tie-breaker the order of preference is CVV > CCV > CVC". The book says: "It is not the only possible algorithm, but it usually gives a choice that people find preferable. The algorithm may be changed in the future." The algorithm doesn't take consonant clusters into account, so I'm not sure how often it gives a choice that people find preferable. It prefers "kixsku" to "ki'asku" for example, just because it's slightly shorter, even though it has a "difficult" consonant cluster. Are we going to devise a better algorithm? I think it would be better to give priority to syllable structure rather than just letter count. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.