Message-Id: <199207120621.AA03060@munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU>
To: lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group)
Subject: Re: rafis tuning; e'o ko jinvi cusku 
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 92 16:21:13 +1000
From: nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU
Content-Length: 4286
Lines: 96

Firstly, it goes without saying that {no'e} and {to'e} must get rafsi {nor}
and {tol}.

Second, I think that some cmavo do deserve better rafsi, but that juggling
gismu rafsi is usually not warranted. The one exception I'd care to mention
is {dra}, which *I* feel definitely belongs to {drata} rather than {drani}.

>Having said this, I will now note that Nora seems to be almost
>completely opposed to rafsi tuning.  The fact that we have made it a
>point to NOT baseline this list because we planned long ago for an
>expected necessary tuning, doesn't mean anything to her.  

Though I feel that rafsi for {to'e}, {no'e}, {ka} and {ni} are justified, as
a whole Nora is right. I don't trust usage is sufficient to change {xle}.
The rafsi changes should not, in any case, number more than 20, and the time
is indeed ripe for a rafsi baseline. It is true that the language is very very
nearly done.

As for place structures --- they will be a perpetual mess, and you know that.
But the time is also ripe for a nice and authoritative baseline for them.

Unless the current assignment is clearly pessimal, no change. Thus let nanca
and ritli be.

>1. As the premier maker of lujvo in actual Lojban text, how bothered are
>you by the prospect of 15% of the rafsi changing 

I am bothered slightly, though not despondent. I do not feel that more than
half those changes are truly warranted (xle, in particular), and would dearly
welcome the opportunity to veto some of these changes.

>a) the extent to which you've learned rafsi and hence don't look them up

I can *almost* live with the relearning - but not 15%. That much isn't necessary
anyway.

>b) sound and rhyme patterns in poetry 

Not a problem worth worrying about.

>d) related to c) - the scoring algorithm of the lujvo maker may differ
>from what human beings might choose as the most preferable lujvo form.

True.

>a) Actually this is the tought one hanging now:  zmadu has both mau and
>zma - there is no competition for zma, and a bit for mau, but mau is the
>rafsi that most people use, and of course matches the related cmavo.  

I see less than no need to free {mau}; it's doing an excellent job where it
is, thank you very much. And I don't really think the word-end usage of
{barda} truly warrants {bra} = though, granted, {bra} is much handier for
such a frequent gismu.

>Based on pure statistics alone, if zmadu and cmalu don't change, barda
>gets bra, cabra takes ca'a, and either cmana goes rafsi-less, gets a CVC
>that doesn't help with hill (cmaca'a) and volcano (pojyca'a), or takes
>ma'a from matma

Ick. I see your problem. My proposal is to let zmadu and cmalu lie, give
{barda} {bra} (and leave {bad} there as well), give {cabra} {ca'a}, and take
{ca'a} away from {cmana} (it does the least damage there). I suppose {barda}
really does deserve the change. I assert few other gismu do, and that there's
not enough usage there anyway to decide.

>b) a lighter change - but showing the depth of difficulties. lojbab has
>traditionally been humorously translated as "logical-soap", and Nora
>based one comic strip on that interpretation.  

*shrug* *This* change you can actually get away with --- I think we can tolerate
this change; the comic strip can always be redrawn.

>"badbarda" is almost memorable enough for me to lock it in

I'll allow you to change it. More I think about it, the more {barda} deserves
{bra}. If {bad} isn't essential anywhere else, though, keep it.

>But bavlamdei is on the line - I gave bav to balvi even though it has also 
>gained bla from blanu and no longer needs a CVC 

Do not allow {bav} to fade, if at all possible.

>and allow each chain, to the extent it is independent of
>others, to be decided individually, rather than to approve the entire
>change package as a single lump.  But this is a lot of work if most
>people don't really care.  Is it worth the effort to you?

100 %, because I feel well over half the changes are unwarranted. I implore
you not to present the rafsi changes as a package. If you do, I will (with
some regret) reject it. Nora is right on this one. The tuning must be sporadic;
I will not abide an overhaul.

>I intend a vote for baseline at LogFest, with additional voting from
>yourself and other significants who cannot be present.

Good.