Message-Id: <9207310423.AA17322@relay1.UU.NET>
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:19:07 +1000
Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!mullian.ee.mu.oz.au!nsn
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!LOJBAN>
From: cbmvax!uunet!mullian.ee.mu.oz.au!nsn
Subject:      rafsi proposals
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
Status: RO

I have four kinds of reactions to the rafsi proposals; YES is approval;
NO is disapproval; SHRUG is a non-vote (I do not care one way or the
other, and will not get in the way of others' votes; but if noone has
anything good to say about the proposal in question, I say drop it in
the interest of conservatism), and YESBUT a qualified yes, or a suggestion
to accept only part of the proposal.

1. YES
2. NO. {bal} is a very useful prefix to have for {banli} in well-hyphenating
form (it is an alternative to {bard-} as an augmentative, and likely to
be productive as a prefix; {ba'i} would not be as convenient.) {baj} is
only ever used in {bajrykla}, and {baj} wouldn't gain that lujvo a
syllable.
3-5. YES, though the evidence for 5 doesn't seem strong enough.
6. NO. I have my doubts as to whether {cmila} is really that popular;
I think {jmina} deserves a CVV much more, and furthermore I regard {mid}
as reasonably sacred (granted, this is because of my glico.)
7-10. YES. 9 isn't essential, but can't hurt.
11. SHRUG. {pilka} doesn't seem to have been much used recently; I suspect
it is a Loglan leftover. It has some use, though I think I tend more
towards {gacri} (probably erroneously). I have the impression the extent
of changes in this proposal is unwarranted.
12. YES.
13. YESBUT. There is *not* enough data in favour of {cfipu} to violate the
cmavo/rafsi link for {frinu}; certainly {cfipu} seems hardly at all used
in lujvo. On the other hand, {fi'i} for {finti} is good. I propose:

13.
*   *   *    14  14             cfipu            14  12   1   4   0   2 confus
---
fin *   fi'i 23  0 fin     fi'i finti fit        34  11   0   4   0  23 invent
---
fit *   -     0 15 fit          friti fi'i       23   8   0   1   3  15 offer
--- cycle on fit
-   *   -     0  0 -       fi'u frinu finfi'u     3   2   0   0   1   1 fracti
----- net benefit 7

14-20. YES. {cni} for {cinse} is good. {cki} for {ciksi} is good, but
pushes sacredness (the rafsi appears in the brochure). In further support
of 15 as opposed to Alternative A, the cmavo {ci'o}, and my hunch that
{cinse} will be more useful than {cinmo} in lujvo. A CVV/CCV for {citno}
is not essential; as John points out, {citno} can easily go in front
of the lujvo of easily as at the end. (Interestingly, he uses that to
argue for AltA, and I for 15. This means that {citno} is not a consideration
in this debate :)
21. YESBUT. The high score for {curnu} is mainly due to my high errors
in using {cu'u} as a rafsi for {cusku}. This erroneously inflated score
certainly does not deserve to have {cur} allocated to it. {cur} should
be left in {curmi}, as it hyphenates well, and since {cru} for {bacru}
is fairly sacred for me. On the other hand the data obviously demands a
CCV/CVV for {cumki}. I thus support this proposal as a lesser of the evils
before me, but would jump at a coherent alternative. Neither B nor John's
proposals are such for me; {mau} I find too sacred, and B has for me the
same outstanding issues. I am very happy to leave {cma} where it is,
whatever the disruption to {mamta} or {cmana}. I do think {mamta} deserves
to keep {ma'a} more than {cmana} though.

22. YESBUT. {sim} for {simxu} is quite sacred for me, and a well-hyphenated
and short prefix like {sim} is essential for what is likely to be a
widely used concept. It is certainly a more important concept as far as
lujvo making is concerned than {snime}. I am not convinced {snime} will
show up that often in lujvo anyway. I thus propose

22.
sic *   *    18  9 sic          stici            18   9   0   1   0   9 west
-   *   si'e  4  0         si'e since sic        12   8   2   2   0   4 snake
*   *   -     0 13              snime si'e       13  13   0   7   0   0 snow
*   *   si'u 14  0 six     si'u simxu sim        56  42   8  22   6  14 mutual
&   *   *     0  7 -            sirxo six        10  10   0   7   0   0 Syrian
*   *   &     0 18 nid          snidu nidsi'u    23   5   0   1   0  18 second
----- net penalty -15, ignoring snidu and sirxo (metric/culture), net benefit
10 (but the frequent usage of {sim} will pay off).

23. YES
24. NO. {nakni} definitely needs {na'i} for optimal hyphening in what will
be a frequently used prefix. (This is not an absolute irrevocable NO)
25. YES.
26. SHRUG.
27. SHRUG. I am not convinced there will be enough usage of {sakci} in lujvo
to force such a chain of changes, and {sal} for {salci} is somewhat sacred
to me. OTOH {sla} and {sau} are well placed in their new assignments.
28-31. YES. {tce} and {bar} are well placed.
32. SHRUG. I can see no pressing need for any of these reassignments.
33-36. YES. I have some hesitation about the transposition of BAI meanings
in 33, and given PA+MOI in syntax, I dispute the necessity of 35. As an
aesthetic matter, I much prefer liquid to nasal hyphens. I *think* I can
live with {kam} for {ka}, but
37-38. YESBUT. I would be much more comfortable with {tol}, rather than
{tom}, for {to'e}. I don't think {toldi} is worth a rafsi in any case.
Additionally, two rafsi is at least one rafsi too many for {romge}.

39-42. YES. I do agree with John on 39, though.
43. SHRUG.
44-47. YES.
48. YESBUT. {gle} is moderately holy (the {gleki} article in JL14), though
it seems well placed for {gletu}. I am not convinced {gerku} deserves its
rafsi (most usages would be {gekyzda}, and {gekypre}, my literal translation
of "cynic"). I have no concrete counterproposal.
49-50. YES.
51. NO. not enough usage to take {taj} away from {traji}; CVV are not a
panacea (I strongly dislike hyphening CVV in 2part lujvo), and John
Cowan's use of {tajnau} for "hero" is close to sanctity.
52. SHRUG. {lujypludi'u} "maze" has much affective value for me (Colossal
Cave translation, and I do not agree with the scoring used; I think the
much more often final-used {pluta} deserves a CCV more. I will not insist
however.
53-58. YES. 55 seems to have worked out particularly well.
59. SHRUG. {bre} has some sanctity for me as {bersa}. I am suspicious
of when {renvi} was used as an end term, and am less than enthused about
this chain of changes.
60-62. YES.
63. SHRUG.
64. SHRUG. I do not think there is enough usage for this to be properly
decided.
65. NO. {murse} is only used in {ctemurse} and {dedmurse} - there is *no*
nonfinal usage of {murse} in lujvo to justify this assignment, nor is there
likely to be. If {sorcu} doesn't need {so'u}, neither does {sorgo}; best
to keep it deallocated, for redundancy.

66-67. YES.
68. NO. I think {cladu} needs a CVC (again, I dislike hyphening, and {ladmau}
is sacred to me), and I look suspiciously on lujvo involving {ladru}.
69. SHRUG.
70-73. YES.
74. SHRUG.
75. YES.
76. NO. John's reasoning convinces me.
77. YES.
78. YES, though as for {moi}, I do not consider this allocation essential.
{mel} is well allocated. However, I'd have no objections to adopting
John's proposed alternative.
79-80. YES.
81. NO. I am sure that when usage (of which there is currently none in
lujvo) comes in, {staku} will need a rafsi much more than {taske}.
82-83. YES.
84. NO. I still consider {djedi} sacred. Incidentally, I believe that
{dinri} *emphatically* deserves a rafsi; {din}, if nothing better is
on offer, as per (garbled?) alternate proposal D.
85-86. YES.
87. SHRUG. I don't consider these changes well justified.
88-89. YES.
90-92. SHRUG. I don't consider these changes justified.

93. YES.
94-95. SHRUG.
96-97. YES.
98. YESBUT. Actually, yes to {jve}; SHRUG to the rest.
99. SHRUG. John is right on overkill; two rafsi is all that's needed.
100. NO. John is right.
101-103. SHRUG. I'm a bit hesitant about these.
104. NO. John is right.
105. SHRUG. I'm a bit hesitant about this too.
106-134. I'm so hesitant, I dare not even shrug. These rafsi would be
occasionally convenient, but the extra learning effort and clogging up
of rafsi space don't seem to me to justify the benefits offered. I thus
vote NO, though not emphatically, and I allow John's specific judgements
to take precedence.
135-137. YESBUT. John is right on overkill; {fod},{foc} and {vag} should go.
I think {diz} should stay though.
138-143. YES. I am not too cut up about {misro} losing; nor should John
be, as it is a cultural gismu.
144-149. SHRUG. John is right again on overkill.
150. NO. Vehement NO. {fei} for {fetsi} is *essential*, even if usage to
date doesn't suggest this (our current cultural background as English
speakers in the later 20th century lead us to shy away from gender
specification; wider usage will *avalanche* in favour of {fetsi}).
151-153. YES.
154. SHRUG.
155. YES.
156-158. SHRUG. I again agree on overkill with John.
159-161. NO, on principle (keep rafsi space unclogged).
Alternative proposals:
A. NO.
B. NO.
C. NO.
D. YES. (if what is intended is {din} to dinri, not jdini)

Summary of other than YES votes:
2, 6, 11, 13, 21, 24, 26, 27, 32, 39, 43, 48, 51, 52, 59, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69,
74, 76, 81, 84, 87, 90-92, 94, 95, 98-137, 144-150, 154, 156-161, A, B, C

(entries in the actual list are more accurate than this summary).

Points of substantial disagreement with John (he has a PRO where I don't
have a YES or SHRUG (or didn't vote en masse (106-134), or I have a YES where
he doesn't have a PRO):

2, 6, 11, 15, 20, 24, 38, 42, 48, 51, 68, 97, 138, 140, 150, A

---
'Dera me xhama t"e larm"e,	      T  Nick Nicholas, EE & CS, Melbourne Uni
 Dera mbas blerimit		      |  nsn@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au (IRC: Nicxjo)
 Me xhama t"e larm"e!		      |  Milaw ki ellhnika/Esperanto parolata/
 Lumtunia nuk ka ngjyra tjera.'	      |  mi ka'e tavla bau la lojban. je'uru'e
 - Martin Camaj, _Nj"e Shp'i e Vetme_ |                *d'oh!*