Received: from localhost ([::1]:60839 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Tzc7m-0000cQ-4q; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:58:58 -0800 Received: from mail-ob0-f176.google.com ([209.85.214.176]:46333) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Tzc7d-0000cI-2Q for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:58:55 -0800 Received: by mail-ob0-f176.google.com with SMTP id v19so2219955obq.35 for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:58:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=gyIomEMWnx+YfBrB4sKeh3/B3NqPp7b/3fUgzD59M5c=; b=i4F9RfPIS6ab2xrqlEi/JGavD9M2f/GDmYXNzH0JZfM6DslIJcNzCevegbU6aeVBNd E2yyEkXopW70fb74FSQrI+sETCxu2IrEBOVqkDo35FvxWyxtMF+wvH5k5D/B2PQadogQ Q8BlpHkrcP172XKLNFJPfRQU5t8sJLB29JcWK+58SIxD0SFWHMtt+ar61BIAb9bI+axx o789bGMxyjOSBsn2HDMMNmqJogSEzu0wHy4u3g1osdIr0j2cbkWu9YhQscdTpHzIMFwf xyI4fEWwHDNOjx4qmAZ7lQ0Bxx7PjFgEikZ2MRnevy3T/qmGXKIihcmaCwoReu5Nzzj3 S6Iw== X-Received: by 10.182.151.9 with SMTP id um9mr9829871obb.89.1359331122626; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:58:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.50.200 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:58:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jacob Errington Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 18:58:22 -0500 Message-ID: To: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / Subject: Re: [jbovlaste] {mumymasti} prevails over {mumyma'i}; are lujvo not canonicalized? X-BeenThere: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: jbovlaste@lojban.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7593260359889676114==" Errors-To: jbovlaste-bounces@lojban.org --===============7593260359889676114== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0444e925b240c904d44df0d4 --f46d0444e925b240c904d44df0d4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 It is indeed a bluff. I've accidentally entered too-high scoring lujvo before, namely {lekri'ami'i}, which should be {lekrikmi'i}. There's indeed some derp in the database, which could be the result of the Great Rafsi Shift. As far as I know, lujvo were created long ago by Nora in noralujv.txt but some time after their original creation, the rafsi were rearranged and some non-canonical lujvo survive to this very day. It's simply our duty to try using the best ones, ignoring the less-that-ideal ones in the dictionary. That being said, feel free to remove all the data from the page and leave a message in the notes with a link to the better lujvo. .i mi'e la tsani mu'o On 27 January 2013 15:38, Eitan Postavsky wrote: > When you enter a word, it says "If it is a lujvo, make sure you're using > the lowest scoring form of the lujvo. You're not going to get anywhere by > using a different form, as the database is periodically swept for > noncanonical form lujvo, and they are modified to the appropriate canonical > form. (Or removed, and all related data pointed towards the canonical > version, if it already exists.)". But {mumymasti} was entered in 2003 and > survives, and its lowest scoring form is {mumyma'i}. Is the quoted message > a bluff, then? heh. > > _______________________________________________ > jbovlaste mailing list > jbovlaste@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste > > --f46d0444e925b240c904d44df0d4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It is indeed a bluff. I've accidentally entered too-high scoring lujvo = before, namely {lekri'ami'i}, which should be {lekrikmi'i}. The= re's indeed some derp in the database, which could be the result of the= Great Rafsi Shift. As far as I know, lujvo were created long ago by Nora i= n noralujv.txt but some time after their original creation, the rafsi were = rearranged and some non-canonical lujvo survive to this very day. It's = simply our duty to try using the best ones, ignoring the less-that-ideal on= es in the dictionary. That being said, feel free to remove all the data fro= m the page and leave a message in the notes with a link to the better lujvo= .

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

On 27 January 2013 15:38, Eitan Postavsky <eitanp32@gmail.com>= wrote:
When you enter a word, it says "If it i= s a lujvo, make sure you're using the lowest scoring form of the lujvo. You're not going to get anywhere by using a differe= nt form, as the database is periodically swept for noncanonical form lujvo, and they are modified to the appropriate canonical form. (Or removed, and all related data pointed towards the canonical version, if it already exists.)". But {mumymasti} was entered in 2003 and= survives, and its lowest scoring form is {mumyma'i}. Is the quoted mes= sage a bluff, then? heh.

_______________________________________________
jbovlaste mailing list
jbovlaste@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste


--f46d0444e925b240c904d44df0d4-- --===============7593260359889676114== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ jbovlaste mailing list jbovlaste@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste --===============7593260359889676114==--