From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Mar 14 06:23:01 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 14 Mar 2005 06:23:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DAqTB-0003Or-OV for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 06:22:58 -0800 Received: from bay23-dav11.bay23.hotmail.com ([64.4.22.191] helo=hotmail.com) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DAqSx-0003Oc-Li for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 06:22:54 -0800 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 06:22:12 -0800 Message-ID: Received: from 65.218.132.157 by BAY23-DAV11.phx.gbl with DAV; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:22:12 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [65.218.132.157] X-Originating-Email: [betsemes@hotmail.com] X-Sender: betsemes@hotmail.com From: "Betsemes" To: References: <20050310195241.GG3265@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: lo kansa gunka se pidversra xatra Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:16:19 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Mar 2005 14:22:12.0853 (UTC) FILETIME=[370F6A50:01C528A1] X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-archive-position: 1248 X-Approved-By: betsemes@hotmail.com X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: betsemes@hotmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners > > > coi rodo > > > > Man. Bit intense for the beginner's list. Fully fleshed out lujvo > > and everything. :-) BTW, most of us (i.e. those working on > > http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/) prefer the format "s1 helps / donates > > to poor child s2=v1=p1 by means s4, child is of age v2 and > > lacking in possessions/properties p2; s3 is 'poorness'". > > > > Wow. The whole thing parses, too. .io sai > > > Most of my success on building that lujvo was sheer luck. Just yesterday, I > read the full list of morphology rules for proper Lojban words. I only was > aware that the resulting lujvo had to end in a vowel by the time I made it > up. So the fact that the resulting lujvo was morphologically correct was > just luck. I have been reading more about lujvo making. As I see it (if I made no errors), pidversra is precisely the kind of lujvo that would be included in a dictionary: pidversra (L=9,A=0,H=0,R=17,V=3,Score=8827) pidve'asra (L=10,A=1,H=0,R=18,V=4,Score=9316) pindyversra (L=11,A=0,H=1,R=14,V=3,Score=10957) pindyve'asra (L=12,A=1,H=1,R=15,V=4,Score=11446) pidverbysra (L=11,A=0,H=1,R=14,V=3,Score=10957) pidversarji (L=11,A=0,H=0,R=11,V=4,Score=10886) pidve'asarji (L=12,A=1,H=0,R=12,V=5,Score=11375) pindyverbysra (L=13,A=0,H=2,R=11,V=3,Score=13087) pidverbysarji (L=13,A=0,H=1,R=8,V=4,Score=13016) pindyversarji (L=13,A=0,H=1,R=8,V=4,Score=13016) pindyve'asarji (L=14,A=1,H=1,R=9,V=5,Score=13505) pindyverbysarji (L=15,A=0,H=2,R=5,V=4,Score=15146) Did I overlook something? Are all these lujvo valid?