Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 22:35:53 -0400 From: lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group) Message-Id: <9208210235.AA24970@daily.grebyn.com> To: c.j.fine@bradford.ac.uk, cowan@snark.thyrsus.com, nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au, shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu Content-Length: 69284 Lines: 2126 Following is the near-final report on the rafsi review, incorporating comments from Nick, Mark, Colin, John Cowan, Nora and David Twery, with all issues looked over at least twice. A few changes remained undecided because the decision needed to be based on the supporting data, which I've added herein. A few others were modified per your comments, and presumably will be acceptable. I will presume that the proposals as explained will be approved unless people object, since except as noted, Cowan, Nora, Twery, and I all agreed to them at LogFest. But feel free to speak up. I will minimize repetition of data from the earlier report to keep this short. Note that I cannot easily draw in from the hundred or more pages of handwritten notes of lujvo proposals in the files. Some of these lujvo came from the Roget's work, hence help give breadth of semantic coverage; others were proposed in the pages of The Loglanist, or by Nora, Tommy and me when we were arguing about what should and shouldn't be in the gismu list. There also may be redundancy, of course, since I have no easy check to see if a proposal has been made more than once in Loglan history. Approved without further comment 1, 3-4, 10, 12, 14, 16-18, 23, 26, 28-31, 34, 36, 41, 44-46, 49-50, 53-54, 56-58, 61-63, 66-67, 69-71, 73-75, 77, 79-80, 82-83, 88-89, 93, 96, 101-103, 139-144, 151-153, 155-157 Approved, but comments/justification provided. Can be reconsidered if someone asks. 5, 8-9, 11, 19-20, 25, 32, 33, 35 (78), 40, 43, 47, 48, 51-2, 59, 64, 68, 86, 90, 97, 106, 111, 113-4, 121-2, 132-4, 138, 146, 148 Modified/Open Issues Please Revote. Benefit of doubt towards approval. 2, 6-7, 13, 15, 21 (76), 22, 24 (150), 27, 37 (38), 39, 42, 55, 65, 84, 85 91-92, 95, 97a, 98-99, 105, 107-8, 110, 116-7, 135-7, 147, 149, 158 Rejected/Withdrawn based on comments 72, 81, 87, 94, 100, 104, 109, 112, 115, 118-20, 123-31, 145, 154, 159-161 Alternate proposals B&C received no particular support as written. Alternate proposal A was partly incorporated into a revised #15. Alternate Proposal D was rendered moot by changing the gismu. Cowan asked me to check unmodified status quo for 'overkills' with CCV and something else that can be deleted per the standards set in this review. These are at the end, numbered starting from 201. I erred on the side of the status quo on these. I tended to keep 'natural' CVCs or CVCs starting with a different letter than the CCV when there was significant 1st position usage, and to drop CV'Vs. Only the changes are given unless I had a special comment. Even with this conservative approach, you will note that several of the cases where there is a CVC and a CCV available, people have regularly chosen the CVC, sometimes even when hyphenation is needed, and sometimes when the CVC isn't even the 'natural' one (e.g. jaf/jamfu and gic/glico). This to me calls into question the whole idea of 'overkill', and suggests that people prefer a CVC to almost anything else if they can find one. Accepting this as a factor SHOULD cause us NOT to make the changes associated with overkill, and indeed to go the other direction if possible. But I leave the vote to you guys. A general vote on the question of deleting rafsi due to 'overkill' when there is already a CCV is appreciated, and any consensus will cause me to globally undo other changes in this report without further vote. Again, as with the case of CV'V in final position, what logical analysis tells us 'should' be good, does not seem to reflect what people choose in practice. I have been a maximalist on rafsi assignments to give people in the post-design phase more choices rather than make the choices in advance for them. Who are we to say that Chinese Lojbanists wouldn't prefer vowel rich CVVs (with or without the ') over the consonant clusters of CCV and most CVC compounds? On the other hand, I am willing to accept the minimalist argument, as long as all you people are sure that is the right thing to do. (I can also, if people want, be more agressively minimalist - there are another 30 or so instances of CVC and CCV for a single word, generally each starting with a different letter, which I omitted from changing because hyphenation may justify keeping both.) _____________ ITEMIZED LIST ------------- 2. NSN considered bal to be very useful on banli and I agree. The change that gives bra to barda, however, makes that word a bit more effective than it used to be in initial position, weakening this argument. He claims bajra is only used in bajrykla, put the data shows otherwise (and this will after all be a much used word in combination with klama, litru, plipe, etc.) If there is still strong feeling on banli, the change of baj is separable from the rest, since bajra has the statistics to take baj from balji even if balji doesn't get 'bal'. But then the net benefit drops to 5 (actually 11 after correcting the typos noted in the actual data). I would not argue with this modification, given examination of the data, though the Eaton data, while profusive, is of course highly suspect. MS agreed with Nick on bajra. baj * * 29 13 baj bajra 29 16 1 12 3 13 run bal * * 1 1 bal balji baj 14 13 1 3 8 1 bulb - * ba'i 16 0 ba'i banli bal 89 73 24 28 14 16 great * * - 0 15 bav balvi bavba'i 97 82 21 40 15 15 future ----- net benefit 17 Supporting data Lojban usage balji: (all three of these appear to be typos that actually support bajra) 10 terbajli'a 1 bajli'a 8 sukybajykla bajra: 37 bajryjvi 1 bajrykla 19 bajrystu 1 cidbajrygre 2 cidbajrykla 3 nunbajra banli: 12 balcu'e 2 baldakfyxai 48 balkumfa 2 balrai 2 baltutra 1 balxau 36 mlebanli 1 vribanli balvi: 2 ba'ispe 3 ba'ivla 2 lamba'i 1 bavla'i 11 bavlamdei 9 bavlamjeftu 11 bavlamji 2 bavma'a 1 bavseljbe TLI Eaton proposals balji - none bajra - 5 usages in final position that using our place struture would require bajrykla or some relative. These were not counted, since I made no such modifications to Eaton data based on place structure differences. But they further enhance the benefit to bajra. pagre +bajra darno +bajra darno +bajra darno +flalu +bajra drata +stuzi +bajra banli: nu +banli +jikca +dansu banli +snada banli +jvinu melbi +banli carmi +banli natmi +banli banli +sanmi banli +sinma banli +natmi srana +banli +se +ciska banli +mukti +xebni banli +sidbo +prenu muvdu +banli +melbi jbena +turni +banli banli +jikca +dansu melbi +banli +jinga banli +turni +ninmu melbi +banli +penmi +tavla banli +jubme +since banli +jbena +turni banli +dansu +fasnu gunka +banli +fuzme balvi: pa +balvi +pa na'e +purci +na'e +balvi balvi +cliva balvi +jmive balvi +krici dunra +balvi citri +balvi balvi +cinse balvi +senpi balvi +ciska balvi +tavla punji +balvi +ti srera +balvi +zbasu sorcu +dunda +balvi dacti +balvi +morsi +fo'a +se +ciska TLI dictionary balji 1 initial, 1 final banli 7 initial, 2 final balvi 11 initial 1 medial 6 final bajra 1 initial, 2 final (equates to net 3 non-final due to place structures) 5. NSN questioned the evidence for this one, though he voted yes. Rechecking the data shows some clear benefit to sanji, with little negative to pajni since it retains its Cvv. Presumed approved. saj * * 26 8 saj sanji 26 18 0 7 5 8 consci paj * * 4 4 paj spaji saj 17 13 3 5 0 4 surpri - * * 0 0 pai pajni pajpai 63 20 0 10 4 43 judge ----- net benefit 18 Lojban usage: sanji 2 cmesanji 9 nalsanji spaji: none pajni 6 pajvrude 12 jvipai 3 maptypai 2 pantypai 7 selxlupai 2 xaurpai 1 zugypai Eaton data sanji sanji +cirko spaji bebna +spaji suksa +spaji barda +spaji mutce +spaji spaji +suksa pajni pajni +prije zifre +pajni purci +pajni casnu +pajni zifre +zukte +jicmu +pajni catlu +claxu +pajni rarna +drani +pajni galtu +pajni +stuzi vamji +pajni TLI dictionary pajni 2 initial 2 medial 4 final sanji 1 initial 1 final spaji 2 initial 6. NSN feels that cmila needed justification. MS saw some justification and proposed two cmila initial position lujvo. The supporting data thus gives 7 initial, 2 medial, 5 final for cmila, all 14 of which are supported by mi'a. Stretching to include the TLI lujvo, jmina has 3 initial and 7 final, thus giving 3 supportable by min and 10 supported by mi'a. But I will note that the jmina lujvo have had significantly more usage, so if word frquency is allowed for, the comparison is much closer. NSN's argument in favor of mid for midju isn't convincing to me, but I will agree that the changed set of rafsi results in less 'natural' assignments than the old set, and minji is left with a fairly mediocre rafsi for those times when it is found initially. I won't fight too hard for this one if Nick still thinks it is bad. * * mi'a 26 0 mi'a cmila 26 17 3 5 2 9 laugh min * - 0 12 min jmina mi'a 30 18 0 9 3 12 add mid * * 0 0 mid mi'e minde minmi'e 81 47 12 13 15 34 comman mij * * 11 11 mij midju mid 50 39 8 21 5 11 middle - * * 0 0 mi'i minji mijmi'i 37 12 2 4 2 25 machin ----- net benefit 14 Lojban usage cmila 2 cmacmila 1 cmilype'u 1 cmilyri'ape'u 1 cmilysatre jmina 1 jonmi'a 8 mi'acru 10 mi'arbe'i 1 mi'arci'a 6 poirmi'a 7 selmi'a 1 velmi'a 1 zbaselmi'a minji 1 mi'ispi 1 taxmi'i 2 tergu'imi'i Eaton data cmila nu +cmila +culno se +cmila suksa +cmila spoja +cmila cmila +spoja zmadu +cmila +dacti sutra +cenba +cmila cmila +krinu +pilno jmina has no TLI gismu equivalent; it is a 2-place lujvo with 2 final position equivalents in the TLI dictionary; cmila has a TLI gismu equivalent but had no lujvo based on it in the dictionary. minji muvdu +zbasu +mlana +minji minji +gidva +bloti 3 initial 6 final in TLI dictionary 7. CF had a strong dislike for this one, the only one he objected to, asking for data on karce, kancu, and kalsa. Mark shrugged, Cowan thought karce initial was fairly worthless. I think the data supports a switch in favor of kalsa, and kancu seems quite untouchable even questioning the TLI data. kas * * 25 0 kas kalsa 25 25 1 19 0 0 chaoti kan * * 19 19 kan kansa kas 79 60 16 23 13 19 with kac * * 6 6 kac kancu kan 32 26 9 9 3 6 count - * * 3 14 - karce kac 21 18 0 8 3 3 car ----- net benefit 14 Lojban usage kalsa 6 kalsyfle 11 kalsygri 4 kalsykla 3 kalsyklo 2 kalsyri'a 3 kalsysu'a kancu 26 cmekancu 2 kangau 1 kankre 2 kanri'a karce 8 kacplu (and Colin's proposal kackla) Eaton data karce nu +muvdu +karce +bloti kancu na'e +cumki +kancu na'e +kancu +cumki na'e +se +kancu +gasnu na'e +se +kancu +zbasu kancu +claxu kancu +zbasu kancu +gasnu kalsa has no TLI equivalent defined, either gismu or lujvo karce 1 initial 2 medial 3 final in TLI dictionary TLI's kancu is not quite the same as ours, which is a 2-place lujvo (kancu gasnu) for them. Their kancu would be a conversion of ours: terkancu. The other TLI dictionary lujvo based on their kancu is equivalent to an initial position usage of our meaning. 8. JC found both of the following rather useless in lujvo, but all voted yes. Here is the supporting data. The D&D terminology obviously skewed things towards dakfu. But "sword" has usage even in nonmedieval contexts. Presumed approved. dak * * 25 6 dak dakfu 25 19 1 1 12 6 knife - * * 8 15 dakli dak 20 12 1 4 2 8 sack ----- net benefit 12 Lojban usage dakfu 2 baldakfyxai 2 cladakfyxai 19 famdakfu 2 krudakfyxai 2 tordakfyxai 2 xandakfyxai dakli 1 dakcka 3 gapydakcifnu 1 sipydakli Eaton data dakfu dakfu +co +darxi TLI dictionary dakfu 1 initial dakli 2 initial 9. NSN questioned the justification for pemci, though others liked it. There are no real losers, so I support the change a bit more strongly. Presumed Approved. pem * * 24 10 pem pemci 24 14 0 3 4 10 poem pen * * 0 0 pen pe'i penmi pempe'i 62 26 10 7 2 36 meet pes * * 0 0 pes pei pensi penpei 107 58 12 20 18 49 think pex * * 1 1 pex pesxu pes 8 7 0 1 4 1 paste pel * * 0 0 pel pelxu pex 13 13 2 4 1 0 yellow pez * * 1 1 pez pezli pel 13 12 0 2 5 1 leaf pef * * 0 0 pef pe'a pez 1 1 1 0 0 0 start ----- net benefit 14 Lojban usage pemci 9 ninpemci 1 pemcypra 8 rampemcyzba 4 salpemci Eaton data pemci +srana TLI dictionary has 1 usage of pemci, in initial position (for poet) 11. NSN questioned pilka's usage in Lojban. The rafsi in question is pi'a. All Lojban usage of pilka has been in final position. I think pilka is used for coverings that are an integral part of the item, while gacri is intended for alienable coverings. Presumed approved. * * pi'a 23 0 pil pi'a pilka pil 36 13 0 3 6 23 crust * xra - 0 0 pir xra pixra pirpi'a 69 32 5 14 7 37 pictur * - xai 0 0 xai xrani xra 49 26 0 11 8 23 injure * * xa'i 0 0 xac xa'i xarci xacxai 65 27 8 8 7 38 weapon xar * - 0 4 xar xanri xa'i 16 12 0 6 2 4 imagin - * * 0 0 xa'a xatra xarxa'a 40 14 3 1 3 26 letter ----- net benefit 19 Lojban usage 2 jmepilka 2 rasyselpilka Eaton data te +pilka +catke na'e +pilka +zbasu dertu +se +pilka jdari +pilka jadni +pilka palku +pilka bongu +pilka kerfa +pilka bisli +pilka taxfu +pilka pilka +punji pilka +litki jirna +pilka jirna +pilka djacu +pagre +pilka katna +kerfa +jibni +pilka TLI dictionary 2 initial, 1 final 13. JC counterproposed leaving frinu with fin, NSN counterproposed leaving frinu with fi'u. MS preferred Nick's. At this point given relatively low usage for finti in non-final position and Cowan's initial position proposals for frinu (thoughg I might use parbi or pagbu for some of these), I am supporting Cowan's alternative, which does give support for the cfipu usages. * * fi'u 14 0 fi'u 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 2 - frinu finfi'u 3 2 0 0 1 1 fracti ----- net benefit 20 Lojban usage cfipu 1 cfipyri'abau 1 selcfipu (frequency understated - used much in DC conversation) frinu - none finti 1 ci'arfinti 1 fitci'a 4 fitfi'i 1 jbofinti 9 nunfinti 8 plafinti 5 selfinti 11 xamfinti 2 xamselfinti Eaton data cfipu cfipu +cinmo cfipu +pensi frinu, finti - none TLI dictionary does not support either frinu or cfipu as gismu or lujvo; finti has 1 final position usage, with the concept of 'create' being 'cnino zbasu' and/or 'larcu zbasu', and author covered by "pemci zbasu", "prosa zbasu", "tarti finti" = innovator???, or the well-known to TLIers "start-giver" (this is the title JCB gives to himself re Loglan). All of these would normally be subsumed under finti for Lojban. 15. JC, NSN, MS heavily debated this change vs. Alternate proposal A. David Twery, who created most of the cinse lujvo that caused the original to be favored over the alternate strongly preferred giving cinmo the good rafsi, indicating that he had gone a bit overboard on cinse compounds, most of which were not likely to see common use. I agree, and Cowan also was willing to go along with a switch to alternate proposal A. (They did favor giving cinse the better rafsi 'cin', and I have done so.) However, examination of the supporting data for first position of citno now leads me to support giving BOTH cit and ci'o to citno, at the expense of cinta. The reduction in hyphenation more than outweighs the minimal proposed usage for cinta. The supporting data is lengthy, so I give Lojban usages only and summarize the rest. The main problem with all this fiddling is that the result offers almost no improvement in statistical coverage, unlike the original proposal. But it may be that local data must overrule statistics here. 15. revised per alternate A and more analysis * * * 11 11 cinla 14 10 1 6 0 4 thin this one unchanged cis * * 6 0 cis crisa 11 11 0 3 3 0 summer cin * * 21 21 cin cinse cis 75 54 12 17 19 21 sexual - * * 1 14 cinta cin 17 16 4 6 3 1 paint * cni - 0 0 cni cinmo ci'o 156 77 12 41 17 79 emotion * * ci'o 15 0 cit ci'o citno cit 56 41 1 28 4 15 young * - ci'i 0 0 ci'i cinri cni 35 19 1 8 4 16 intere * cki - 0 0 cki ciksi ci'i 43 12 0 4 2 31 explai * - ci'u 0 0 ci'u ckilu cki 84 15 2 10 1 69 scale tid * - 0 6 tid tcidu ci'u 17 11 0 1 3 6 read sid * * 0 0 sid ti'i stidi tidti'i 43 14 0 8 0 29 sugges = * * 0 0 dju sidju siddju 62 43 9 9 18 19 help ----- net benefit 2 Lojban usage crisa none; Eaton 1 medial that would still need a hyphen, TLI dict: 3 initial cinse 1 cinsycroxra 1 cispe'o 1 cispendo 1 cisri'aboi 1 cistai 1 cistanru 1 cistau 1 cistrikei 1 cisyjvo 10 cisyselpli 1 cornuncinse 1 degnuncinse 1 gircinse 1 kaznalcisyselci 1 kelcistri 1 malcistrikei 7 nalcinse 1 nalcispe'o 1 nalnuncinse 1 nalsukcisfra 5 nuncinse 1 nunciskei 1 nuncisyjikca 1 nungaxycinse 1 nunmo'ucinse 1 nunselbaicinse 1 pursukcisfra 1 samcinse 1 selcinse 1 sevycinse 1 sukcaicisfra Eaton 3 initial 2 medial, 1 final; TLI dict: 2 initial cinmo 3 camci'o 3 ci'ocro 5 ci'onri'a 8 ci'ordu'e 8 ci'orja'o 8 ci'orkansa 1 ci'orma'o 1 ci'orsinxa 1 depci'o 3 jivyci'o 5 kazyci'o 3 nuncinmo 6 selcinmo 4 sepci'o 8 smaci'o 2 to'erci'o Eaton data 5 initial, 5 medial, 18 final; TLI dict: 7 init. 3 medial 4 final citno 5 citkanba 2 citnanla 10 citnau 28 citni'u 6 citpendo 10 citrai 3 fetcitno 20 nimcitno 2 slacitcu'e 4 to'ecitno 2 to'ercitnau 9 to'ercitno Eaton data 2 initial 1 final; TLI dict: 3 init. cinta 3 cinfai Eaton data 1 medial; TLI dict: 4 init. cinla 8 caircinla 1 cinlycai Eaton data 2 initial; TLI dict. 1 init. 19. MS liked gar for gapru, though he doesn't say why. 'gap' is the more natural rafsi, and all others preferred the change. Presumed adopted. 20. JC was undecided on these, and MS shrugged. Supporting data for danti and darsi provided. They are minimal since TLI had neither word. danti covers a wide range of English words (arrow, bullet, ballistic, gun, cannon, missile); darsi has a much more limited range: audacity, dare, chutzpah, 'guts'. darno incidentally gets its more natural rafsi. Cowan agreed. Presumed adopted. dan * * 20 11 dan danti 20 9 0 3 3 11 projec dar * * 0 0 dar da'o darno danda'o 49 43 7 22 7 6 far - * * 1 7 - darsi dar 10 9 2 4 0 1 audaci ----- net benefit 3 Lojban usage danti 2 seldanti 23 terdanti (which is meaningless given the new place structure) darsi none 21. JC, NSN, MS all commented. There was no support for alternate B as proposed; it was dropped. JC suggested something else instead using makcu, but it really takes a GOOD usage to justify displacing the enormously used cmalu from a CCV. NSN noted that the data for curnu is erroneous, being based on his errors. From the standpoint of this proposed change, I can see no difference in taking away those numbers - curnu was merely a side beneficiary of the main thread of changes. However, if people feel it appropriate, cu'u can be given over to cuntu per change 76. which would then allow macnu to regain cnu as some have asked for. I have changed the numbers for curnu to reflect Nick's errors. Nick was unhappy about bacru losing cru. I agree that it was close to sacred. But the benefit to the much more useful cumki and barda and curmi cannot be ignored (not to mention bringing cu'i the rafsi to track with the cmavo). I suspect that most usages of bacru should be cusku anyway. The tradeoff between mamta and cmana is not as simple as it might seem. Yeah, I'd like to see mamta keep ma'a. But it already has mam, while cmana would otherwise have no cmavo. Thus the scoring tradeoff is the 13 for final position of mamta vs. 39 for cmana, nearly twice as bad as the worst coverage other than this one. * * cu'i 17 0 cum cu'i cumki cum 58 41 4 21 9 17 possib --- - bra * 19 0 bra barda bad 131 112 28 61 14 19 big --- - cru - 0 0 cru curmi curcu'i 86 25 1 14 4 61 let ----- with side benefit to cur * - 0 (5)cur curnu cu'u 9 4 0 0 0 5 worm --- * - ba'u 0 0 ba'u bacru cru 87 25 1 8 7 62 utter bad * - 0 11 bad bandu ba'u 23 12 1 4 3 11 defend - bra * 19 0 bra barda bad 131 112 28 61 14 19 big * - ca'a 0 0 ca'a cabra bra 87 13 3 4 3 74 appara * * ma'a 0 0 ma'a cmana ca'a 46 34 0 23 4 12 mounta * * - 0 13 mam mamta mamma'a 52 39 11 17 3 13 mother ----- net benefit 12 (the 5 from curnu losing cu'u is counted on 76 below) erroneous curnu data 2 dapcu'u 2 jgicu'u 1 seircu'u 1 selcu'u 10 sevycu'u (this amounts to a net score of 11 in final position, which is reflected above.) 76. JC NSN MS all agreed that macnu had more need for a rafsi than cutne. But the real tradeoff for such a rafsi assignment is vs. cuntu, which covers a wide and useful semantic range including 'affairs', and 'business'. JC proposed 4 initial position lujvo for macnu. I also discovered I was missing some TLI dictionary data, giving macnu at least 9 more score in initial position, more than enough to justify a rafsi. Given the realization of problems with curnu data in 21. above, I favor moving cu'u to cuntu, allowing cnu to return to macnu. The following reflects that proposal. cut * * 6 0 cut cutne 6 6 0 1 0 0 chest cur * - 0 5 cur curnu cu'u 9 4 0 0 0 5 worm - - cu'u 3 0 cu'u cuntu cut 19 16 4 6 3 3 affair * * * 13 0 - cnu macnu cnu 13 1 13 0 0 0 manual ----- net benefit 17 Lojban usage cuntu 17 cutyzu'e cutne, macnu: none Eaton data cuntu ka +no +se +cuntu se +cuntu +cenba se +cuntu +zbasu se +cuntu +mukti TLI dict: cuntu 1 final macnu 9 initial cutne: none 22. NSN indicates that sim is sacred for him for simxu; MS agrees, labelling 'six' as "icky". I am inclined to wonder if such a distaste for 'x' is malglico, recognizing of course that Mark speaks languages that use 'x'. I will go along based on the rather less malglico argument that 'six' is lousy for hyphenation as compared with 'sim', and simxu has 30 1st position usages. The decision then is which of stici, since, or snime is denied a rafsi. Note that directional usages of stici are likely to be reversible in lujvo (e.g northwest = westnorth). The data which seems to favor snime and stici, follows, as well as the presumed modification to the change based on retracting sim for simxu. sic * * 10 9 sic stici 18 9 0 1 0 9 west - * * 4 8 since sic 12 8 2 2 0 4 snake * * * 0 0 si'e snime si'e 13 13 0 7 0 0 snow * * si'u 14 0 sim si'u simxu sim 56 42 8 22 6 14 mutual * * * 0 0 six sirxo six 10 10 0 7 0 0 Syrian * * & 0 18 nid snidu nidsi'u 23 5 0 1 0 18 second ----- net penalty -7, ignoring snidu (metric/culture), net benefit 11 Lojban usage snime 6 si'erbi'e since - none stici 6 berstici 15 snanystici 1 sticymla Eaton data since banli +jubme +since TLI dict. stici - 2 final snime - 2 initial since - no lujvo 24. NSN took an interesting position on this one. He said NO, but indicated that this was "not an irrevocable NO", being based on trying for optimal hyphenation. MS agreed with Nick. The interesting thing is that Nick was MUCH more vehement on the parallel case re fetsi, #150, which follows, in spite of the fact that in that case fetsi was actually going to retain a final position rafsi even with the change. Now I ask why fetsi MUST have a monosyllable CVV when nakni, even if na'i is retained, gets only a disyllable CV'V. Methinks a double standard is being raised. JC points out in response that probably most lujvo with fetsi or nakni in final position can reverse the order and put the gender in initial position. It is not necessary that gender in Lojban be a suffix, especially when the prefix is more likely to be recognizeable in having 2 consonants. On the other hand, we KNOW that monetary units will exist for nearly every cultural gismu in final position, and this is NOT a particularly reversible lujvo (cent-ish American-thing???) nalci, of course, deserves a rafsi - there is certainly going to be use for 'wing' in both initial and final positions. Nick's willingness to give on nakni which would give it no final position rafsi at all, weakens his case on fetsi such that Cowan and I vote equally strongly for the change as proposed. * * na'i 18 0 na'i nalci 18 7 1 2 0 11 wing * * - 0 9 nak nakni nakna'i 25 16 1 9 1 9 male ----- net benefit 9 150. NSN vehemently opposes * * fei 0 0 fep fei fepni fepfe'i 40 10 0 3 0 31 cent * * fe'i 0 0 fet fe'i fetsi fetfei 53 42 15 23 0 11 female 25. MS asked for supporting data on tcaci and tcadu. It was close pre-Lojban usage, but not since. Presumed approved. Lojban usage tcaci 4 tcaju'o tcadu 6 jbeta'uxa'u 1 lunryta'u 2 pijyta'u 4 ralta'u 3 ta'urkarni 8 ta'urlumpu'o 2 ta'urtrurkamni 3 ta'urxa'u 18 ta'utru 7 ta'uvro 3 ta'uvru Eaton data tcaci tcaci +se +zukte mutce +xlali +tcaci tcadu barda +tcadu tcadu +ralju bartu +tcadu +zdani TLI dict. tcadu 4 init 3 final tcaci 5 init 1 final 27. NSN wants justification for sakci, enough to be moving sal from salci. The main justification is that salci needs something it can use in final position. I am actually more disturbed by having to weaken slabu and lasna. The data shows that the usage of sakci comes mostly from the compendium of DT's sexual terms, but that lasna appears to be well-enough served by la'a. I leave it to you people to choose between slabu and salci, with the edge to salci based on statistics if there is no consensus otherwise. sak * * 11 3 sak sakci 11 8 3 2 1 3 suck sal * * 4 4 sal sakli sak 13 9 3 2 0 4 slide - sla * 16 0 sla salci sal 46 30 1 17 7 16 celebr * - sau 0 0 sau slabu sla 49 38 12 14 4 11 old sas * - 0 9 sas srasu sau 38 29 2 12 9 9 grass las * * 1 1 las slasi sas 13 12 2 6 0 1 plasti - * * 0 0 la'a lasna lasla'a 36 17 1 7 4 19 fasten ----- net benefit 15 Lojban usage sakci 2 gaxliksakci 2 sakcypinji 6 sakcyselylumci salci 10 ctisalci 1 glesalcydei 3 jbosalci 1 nungumsaldansu 29 nunsalci 8 nunsaldansu 5 pixsalci 3 sa'irsalci 3 salcti 10 saldei 2 salgei 1 salja'o 4 salpemci 5 salsanga slabu 2 mlecyslarai 4 ninsla 2 slacitcu'e 1 sladi'e 8 slagle 2 slamidju 1 slasutsabdja 2 zmaslarai lasna 24 kikla'a 11 la'arja'i 1 nunla'a 1 nunlasna 3 sfalasna 1 skola'a 1 terla'a 1 terlasna Eaton data slabu xlali +slabu xamgu +slabu slabu +stuzi slabu +ckilu +merli lasna, sakci, salci: none TLI dict: lasna is neither gismu or lujvo; sakci exists only as the limited semantics lujvo mouth-pull, salci is the lujvo grand-respect-give, though there are three unrelated lujvo for celebration: amuse-time, happy-time, giver-happy-time. Excellent examples for the weakness of the TLI language and their lujvo-making. slabu: 6 initial position 32. NSN and MS don't see why the following. The major beneficiaries are the first three words, and nothing much is hurt by the change: sraji is the only word that loses coverage and almost all of its uses are initial position, where a CVC will serve well (though I note in the data it sraji seems to have an affinity for being followed by words that start with unvoiced consonants, so there may be a lot of hyphenation.) There is a hidden benefit in that sumne did not get any rafsi, so panci may come to carry an extra load for sensory lujvo, but people haven't done much in this area yet (maybe in the coffeeshop???). Presumed approved. sat * * 8 0 sat sakta 8 8 1 4 0 0 sugar - * sa'e 8 0 sa'e satre sat 19 11 0 4 1 8 stroke --- pan * * 12 1 pan panci 12 11 1 4 1 1 odor san * * 0 0 san spano pan 15 15 0 13 0 0 Spanis --- sna 0 0 sna sance sansa'e 185 122 10 86 20 63 sound * - sa'i 0 0 sa'i sanli sna 33 10 0 1 2 23 stand * * sai 0 0 sai sanmi sa'i 44 24 1 6 10 20 meal * sra - 0 0 sra sarji sai 53 34 3 10 14 19 suppor raj - * 0 1 raj sraji sra 53 52 15 26 8 1 vertic - * * 0 0 ra'i ranji rajra'i 36 27 4 8 7 9 contin ----- net benefit 24 Lojban data sakta - none satre 1 cmilysatre 2 jisysatre 1 riksurlysatre 1 tacysatre 1 vibytacysatre panci/sumne sraji 3 drasratse 1 sraca'a 141 srake'a 1 srake'aloi 10 sramudri 2 srasirdra Eaton data sakta - none satre satre +ctebi denci +kansa +satre panci panci +pluka xamgu +panci sumne - none sraji sraji +clani sraji +fenra sraji +pluta sraji +danmo +pluta TLI dict. sakta - gismu but not used sumne/panci - the gismu is for panci with sumne a derived lujvo; 3 initial satre - translated as darxi, or the lujvo prami-pencu sraji - 4 initial position 33. NSN disputes my desire for tarmi to have a BAI that matches it closely. Both tadji and tarmi have been sumti tcita dating back to the TLI days when there were only a dozen BAIs; they are among the most important and likely to be used. Nick himself missed the significance of tarmi in badbarda/brabra kevna, if people will recall the rivers of rock metaphor discussion last year. The statistics also show that tarti and tarmi are among the most used gismu in lujvo, and I am concerned that people will bring the wrong one to mind when they see the cmavo/rafsi based on the inconsistency. Mark argued against this kind of change elsewhere, but this was has been severe enough to affect me and Nora, and I'm happy to find out that the data justifies the change that I wanted to see. 35. ( and 78.) NSN and MS weren't convinced that moi would be used in lujvo (and for that matter mei in #78, wherein JC also objected. However, people have used pamoi and pamei in lujvo as well as standalone; it is a frequent mistake by beginners - one with little statistical supporting data, of course, since there is no way to make lujvo with these words at all now. mei is easy to demonstrate the need for: all concepts wherein singularity is significant will be -pavmei; likewise pairs will be -relmei, and trios, quartets, quintets, dozens, scores, grosses, abound in English and I presume other languages. They all need a mei rafsi, or instead must be tanru with the number selbri probably in final position, which usually gives a useless place structure. "moi" is a little harder to come up with examples for, but "first" and "last" -pavmoi and -rolmoi seem especially productive. Orchestras have first and second violins, and Loglan/Lojban now has a first-digger (pavmoikakpa). Ordinals are less used in natlangs than cardinals, but when they are used, their semantics seems to stress the order more than the number itself. I think the numerical selbri standing apart, on the other hand, tend to stress the number, and not its semantic usage. 37. NSN wanted the assignments changed, even at the expense of toldi, to suit some apparently aesthetic consideration. I distrust aesthetics as a motivation for anything in Lojban as being inherently culturally biased, but this one needed changing anyway since people decided number rafsi were sacred, and toldi can pick up the 'overkill' 'tod' from stodi. So in this case I can oblige Nick's aesthetics. * * * 0 0 non no non 7 7 2 3 2 0 0 unchanged tol * * 0 0 tol to'e to'e to'e 45 45 4 35 6 0 polar nor * * 0 0 nor no'e no'e no'e 11 11 4 7 0 0 neutra tod * - 0 2 tod toldi to'i 6 4 0 0 0 2 butter = * * 0 0 sto stodi todsto 12 9 1 3 1 3 consta 38. JC NSN MS all agreed that 2 rafsi for romge was excessive. I won't argue in the face of massive rafsi minimalist semtiment, and have dropped ro'e. rom * roi 0 0 rom roi roi rov 0 0 0 0 0 0 quanti rog * - 0 0 rog romge romro'e 3 3 0 1 0 0 chrome * * ro'i 0 0 rok ro'i rokci rokroi 59 33 1 13 8 29 rock toc * toi 0 0 toc toi troci rocro'i 41 22 2 7 4 19 try * * to'i 0 0 ton to'i torni tontoi 17 14 3 5 0 3 twist tod * - 0 2 tod toldi to'i 6 4 0 0 0 2 butter ----- roc is freed and is not useful to any other word ----- rog is currently unassigned ----- net penalty 2 ----- roi proposed by me as needing a non-hyphenating rafsi 39. JC NSN MS all agree that gocti and gotro do not need the CVV rafsi (goi and go'o), and they are deleted from the proposal. The new gismu were approved at LogFest. Giving bep to zbepi is overkill; it AND ze'i are dropped in the revised proposal. goc * * 0 goc gocti 1e-24 zep * * 0 zep zepti 1e-21 got * * 0 got gotro 1e24 zet * * 0 zet zetro 1e21 = * = 0 0 zbe zbepi zepzbeze'i 9 3 0 1 1 6 pedest 40. Correcting a historical note: Cowan thought that pante was a new gismu, which it is not. It dates to the TLI era, though it has only 1 final position lujvo usage in the TLI dictionary. In any case, the proposal is approved since not opposed. 42. JC was undecided on this one. Here is the data. mat * * 16 3 mat mapti 16 13 0 6 1 3 fit - * * 1 6 - matra mat 6 5 2 3 0 1 motor ----- net benefit 8 Lojban data mapti 1 maptybi'o 3 maptypai 2 maptype'i matra-none Eaton data mapti-none matra matra +trene TLI dict. matra - 1 init. 1 final matci is reflected in the brain-dead lujvo "tarmi-mintu", as if things must always be of identical shape to match each other. 43. NSN shrugged; the others said yes. Here's the data showing a preponderence of people talking about the weather in final position, especially in recent times; I'll assume it approved. * * ti'a 15 0 tim ti'a tcima tim 35 20 4 5 6 15 weathe * * - 0 14 tic tcica ticti'a 48 34 9 11 8 14 deceiv ----- net benefit 1 Lojban data tcima 22 cictcima 15 viltcima 1 xlatcima tcica 3 maltcica Eaton data tcima nu +tcima +dikca vlile +tcima tcima +pruce vlile +tcima +simsa klina +tcima +cenba tcica tcica +se +simlu tavla +tcica jitfa +tavla +tcica TLI dict. tcima - 2 init. 1 medial, 1 final tcica - 1 init. 47. MS wanted justification on this, but the others approved. There is inherently not going to be a lot - given that rijno is rather limited semantically, and hence is not likely to be too productive. I won't argue too hard if people want to reverse this one. rij * * 12 0 rij rijno 12 12 1 5 0 0 silver - * * 0 0 ri'u rinju rijri'u 43 23 4 4 10 20 restra ----- net benefit 12 Lojban data rijno 1 rijnysi'a 2 rijnyska rinju 8 ri'usrutu'o 1 selri'u Eaton data rijno rijno +simsa rinju rinju +cabra cabra +rinju zukte +rinju tarti +rinju stuzi +rinju muvdu +rinju rinju +javni botsu +rinju +genxu muvdu +sevzi +rinju genxu +rinju +bloti +stuzi cabra +rinju +botsu +stuzi TLI dict. rijno 2 initial (including rijno simsa again) rinju 5 final 48. NSN saw no particular justification for gerku, except for figurative ones. It does seem to have been bolstered by the iterations of Open Window in the files, but there seems to be plenty of other usages even if some are quite figurative. I consider the gleki article in JL to be exactly what I DON'T consider to be sacred. All of these statistics are based on such spewing out of numerous proposals, and many of them have seen print in either JL or TLI publications. To me, a rafsi is sacred if people know a particular lujvo based on it well enough to use without analysis (in which case they won't notice until they confuse someone that the meaning has been changed out from under them), or something that we have used in teaching documents extensively enough that people would notice the change (especially if we missed revising it, a la kunbri - by my standards, kun would have been sacred is this review based on that usage, even though the metaphor was lousy. I have never seen any indication that people even READ that gleki game, much less used it as a source of lujvo, or as intended, tried to do the same for some other semantic field.) ger * ge'u 12 0 ger ge'u gerku gek 32 20 0 12 0 12 dog --- gen * * 0 0 gen ge'a gerna gerge'a 43 11 3 0 1 32 gramma = * * 0 0 jge jgena genjge 18 12 0 9 3 6 knot --- * gle - 0 0 let gle gletu letge'u 18 13 1 2 4 5 copula gek - * 0 0 gek gei gleki glegei 83 51 5 25 13 32 happy ----- cycle back on gek ----- net benefit 12 Lojban data 3 gekcru 6 gekpre 8 gekyki'a 1 jvigerku 9 malgerku 1 nungerku 24 pangerku 1 simygerku Eaton data - none TLI dict: 2 initial (nakni/fetsi) 51. NSN thought taj sacred due to tajnau. JC answers that he would not want the language bound by people's earliest Lojban writings - he would not have used that lujvo if he were writing the same text today. MS asked re justification for tamji, and I'll give non-final uses of traji as well. taj * * 10 2 taj tamji 10 8 0 2 2 2 thumb - * * 0 0 rai traji tajrai 210 63 4 8 43 147 superl ----- net benefit 8 Lojban data traji 10 tajnau tamji 2 jaftamji 2 jaftamjycalku Eaton data tamji tamji +clani tamji +ganra traji in TLI Loglan is only expressed as "zmadu roda" 52. NSN gives a lujvo for maze "lujypludi'u" that would lose a hyphen by this proposal "lujlu'adi'u", and claims that pluta will be more used in final position. The latter is true as the data below shows, but affects decision-making only if you buy the argument that CVVs are poor in final position, which we've already argued to no consensus - the data goes both ways, and it probably depends on aesthetics as well as whether you are writing or speaking the word. Since even those opponents of CVV final use them in final position when they can use the expanded form as well, I think this is intellectual rather than pragmatic aesthetics that we are dealing with. In any event there is clearly significant use of daplu, most of it final, and pluta does remain covered. daplu 4 badydaplu 1 cmadaplu 2 xabdaplu pluta 3 di'uplu 18 dijyplu 2 dzuplu 1 jacplu 8 kacplu 39 lujypludi'u 3 plufa'o 1 pluke'a 1 pluku'a 8 velplu Eaton data daplu pagbu +daplu xadba +daplu pluta pluta +cirko sraji +pluta flecu +pluta tricu +pluta danmo +pluta cliva +bartu +drani +pluta bartu +pluta +cliva pluta +sisti +rinka sraji +danmo +pluta ciblu +fatne +pluta jdari +rinka +jamfu +pluta TLI dict. daplu is a gismu, but not in any lujvo pluta 2 initial, 6 final 55. MS asks whether creka needs a final form - the data shows only one usage in that position. He and JC agree that cet should be freed, so the proposal is so amended. * * cei 4 0 cev cei cevni cev 58 54 16 28 2 4 god --- * * ce'u 9 0 cem ce'u cecmu cem 22 13 2 5 0 9 commun = cre - 0 0 cre certu cetce'u 61 19 2 9 2 42 expert cek - * 0 1 cek creka cre 8 7 0 2 1 1 shirt --- tek * ce'i 0 0 tek ce'i cteki cekcei 14 9 1 4 2 5 tax * * - 0 2 teb ctebi tebce'i 9 7 1 1 1 2 lip ----- tek was previously unused ----- net benefit 10 59. NSN questioned final position usage of renvi in this change. All lujvo usage thus far has been in final position, and JC notes that "survivor" is a form that may suggest more usage (also victim, and outlast, in certain contexts are renvi). * * re'i 10 0 rev re'i renvi rev 23 13 2 5 1 10 surviv * bre - 0 0 red bre bredi redre'i 35 29 3 9 11 6 ready bes - be'a 0 0 bes be'a bersa bre 42 12 1 6 0 30 son jer * - 0 3 jer jbera be'a 8 5 0 2 0 3 borrow - * * 2 2 - jerna jer 6 4 0 0 0 2 earn ben * * 0 0 ben besna bes 25 25 10 10 0 0 brain = * * 0 0 jbe jbena benjbe 84 59 19 24 9 25 born ----- net benefit 7 Lojban data 2 ninrenvi 9 nunrenvi 4 selrenvi renvi was not a TLI gismu or lujvo 64. JC was strongly for this one; NSN MS less so. Rice has some obvious compounds in food discussions; probably more in cultures where rice is more important (The Chinese may have 57 words for rice, instead of snow ^) risna is useful in medicine, where the adjectivial form cardiac may suggest some lujvo, but the 2 lujvo usages actually recorded are from Eaton data, and are tied to the malglico "broken-hearted". .ionaicai Presumend approved. ris * * 9 0 ris rismi 9 9 1 0 4 0 rice - * * 2 2 - risna ris 8 6 0 0 0 2 heart ----- net benefit 9 65. NSN MS agreed that this was an unjustified clunker. The supposed beneficiaries were murse and sorgo which casual inspection showed had no real usage. This change was an artifact of my early statistical methods that should have been caught when I changed them in midstream, and had no justification. Cowan argued for deletion of at least one of the rafsi for sorcu on general principles, though, and I consented. Revised: * * = 0 0 soc sro sorcu socsroso'u 69 42 7 14 16 27 store murse, muslo, solji, so'a, sorgu unchanged ----- net change 0 68. NSN is opposed, being suspicious of lujvo involving ladru. Why? Have you never seen a dairy farm, eaten or drunk dairy products, etc. Then there are specific products: goat-milk-cheese, etc. And this even presumes that the concept "milky" is impermissible as a description of appearance for a liquid. (I won't argue for "Milky Way"). Whether these outweigh cladu's needs may be arguable, but the usages are there. JC and I are strong yes, MS a weak no. I can't argue if Nick says ladmau is sacred to him lad * * 8 0 lad ladru 8 8 0 3 0 0 milk - * * 0 0 lau cladu ladlau 41 31 2 18 4 10 loud ----- net benefit 8 Lojban data cladu 2 cladakfyxai 2 ladbacru 2 ladbi'o 4 ladmau 1 ladyckasu 8 laucru 1 nalcladu 2 to'erlau ladru - none Eaton data cladu zanru +cladu cladu +darlu so'i +cladu +sance farlu +ja +porpi +cladu ladru ladru +dinju TLI dict. cladu 3 init. 1 medial 2 fianl ladru 1 init (milky) 72. MS thought this one made no sense, and on second look at the statistics, I agreed. My standard was to divide the number of 1st position usages by 4 or 5, and even this gives jundi more need than the single usage of judri non-final. judri 7 6 0 0 1 1 addres jundi judju'i 42 20 1 12 0 22 attent no change 81. JC, NSN, MS agreed that staku was more useful than taske in lujvo. Neither had seen any use in lujvo, but taske had been used as a gismu several times, unlike staku. Given Cowan's actual proposals for lujvo, the proposal was withdrawn. taske 4 4 0 0 0 0 thirst staku tak 1 1 0 0 0 0 cerami no change 84. NSN MS both oppose this change, MS less strongly. JC and I both support it. (JC also wants 'ded' dropped as overkill, and I agree, and have modified the proposal.) The tradeoff is between supporting denci, or labelling a rafsi that probably should not have been used EXCEPT for malglico reasons as sacred. Both opponents consider it vital to have a rafsi for dinri, yet MS says that all the lujvo made with 'dei' are djedi based and not dinri. If so, then there is no usage to justify a rafsi for dinri; one cannot have it both ways. Both denci and degji will be used in final position, both literally and in the same kinds of shape-related figurative metaphors. This one really seems to be the big vote on sacredness vs. efficiency. So lets see if the data changes any votes or leads to a consensus. The dinri problem has been solved - based on the ckamu, mleca precedent, JC and I proposed changing the gismu to give it good rafsi, arguing that as a newly created word it is not yet well-known, and the extreme demand for good rafsi for it (though almost unjustified by actual examples, I must admit) warrants overriding the sanctity of the gismu list. This was approved at LogFest, and CF also agreed that changing the gismu was acceptable in this case. (Sorry if this sounds like a railroad, but we didn't have much time to check with people between proposal and vote - Colin happened to send a message at the right time.) I want people to go through the lujvo data below and determine which if any should be switched to donri. * * de'i 4 0 den de'i denci den 28 24 2 8 9 4 tooth * * dei 0 0 deg dei degji degde'i 31 23 3 11 5 8 finger = * = 0 0 dje djedi deddjedei 102 39 9 17 5 63 full d dor * do'i dor do'i donri [dinri] 4 4 0 0 0 0 daytime ----- net benefit 4 Lojban data denci 26 xantydenmai 1 dentro degji 2 badjafyde'i 2 badjafyde'icalku 2 badyde'i 4 degjai 1 degnuncinse 2 pavde'i djedi 11 bavlamdei 2 bendei 30 cabdei 13 dedmidju 1 djesni 1 djetei 1 glejbedei 1 glesalcydei 3 midydei 2 midydeisa'i 8 nacykefydei 1 pavnondei 9 prulamdei 11 purlamdei 4 roldei 10 saldei 1 zandei Eaton data denci denci +bongu denci +danlu degji +denci barda +denci +marji denci +kansa +satre jamfu +degji +denci degji degji +denci degji +sinxa jamfu +degji +denci djedi pa +djedi pa +djedi re +purci +cabna +djedi djedi +krasi gleki +djedi jbena +djedi morji +djedi djedi +liste djedi +xriso +re +moi +jbena djedi +morji +cukta ciste +djedi +nanca TLI dict. denci 3 init. degji 5 init; also toe was separate gismu with no lujvo djedi (their djedi is defined as our dinri/donri, though you'd never guess it from the lujvo) xriso djedi midju djedi lamji djedi ro djedi purci djedi jbena djedi djedi nicte (our djedi) djedi sinxa balvi lamji djedi purci lamji djedi djedi sinxa ciska 85. JC labelled this one "no winners, only losers". I asked him what this meant. His philosophy is to try to give every gismu at least one rafsi to some extent regardless of usage. Thus zbani loses. zarci doesn't win by this philosophy since it already has a rafsi, even though any number of types of stores and marketplaces will use zarci in final position. JC now supports the proposal, but I list supporting data for zasti and zarci, and people can decide whether they want to reverse zai and za'i between these two. * * za'i 3 0 zac za'i zarci zac 15 12 0 2 1 3 market * * zai 0 0 zat zai zasti zatza'i 30 27 3 10 7 3 exist * * - 0 2 - zbani zai 5 4 0 1 0 1 bay ----- net benefit 1 ----- The statistics don't support this very strongly, but I can imagine countless numbers of lujvo for types of markets/stores/malls, and few for bay. Lojban data zarci - none zasti 1 cabnalzasti 1 za'irbi'o 3 zatsta zbani - none Eaton data zarci ponse +pagbu +zarci pagbu +ponse +zarci pagbu +ponse +zarci +stuzi zasti zasti +sisti so'i +zasti TLI dict. zarci - 2 init. zasti, zbani: no lujvo for these gismu 86. MS thought virnu was more likely to be initial, apparently ignoring the large numbers in final position (which are real - many of them date from my own TLI dictionary work before Lojban), and that the vri could be assigned somewhere more valuable. There aren't all that many words that have a better excuse for CCV than one with 11 initial, 9 medial, and 22 final in score, and besides - no other gismu COULD be assigned vri (including vidru, even if we had wanted to - it would qualiy only for vid, vir, vi'u, and dru). Presumed approved. vir * * 3 0 vir vidru 3 3 0 1 0 0 virus = * * 0 0 vri virnu virvri 48 26 2 9 9 22 brave ----- net benefit 3 87. NSN and MS both considered these poorly justified, with Mark labelling it a lot of clunking in pursuit of a promise of cmavo correspondence that is unachievable. I'm convinced. Proposal withdrawn. junta 2 2 0 2 0 0 weight jutsi jut 7 6 0 0 1 1 specie jursa jus 7 4 0 0 0 3 severe junri jur 11 8 0 2 2 3 seriou djuno junju'o 99 60 12 20 19 39 know dunli dundu'i 50 34 0 10 17 16 equal jduli duljdu 11 8 0 7 0 3 jelly du dubdu'o 2 2 2 0 0 0 same i du'u dum 0 0 0 0 0 0 bridi jungo jug 16 16 1 11 0 0 Chines unchanged 90.-92. NSN MS questioned whether these changes were justified. In 90., it is a toss-up, since neither is used in final position. But snura clearly has much more overall use and can thus is more likely to make use of it. * * nu'a 2 0 nur nu'a snura nur 52 50 9 29 6 2 secure * * - 0 1 nuz nuzba nuznu'a 24 23 0 13 3 1 news ----- net benefit 1 Lojban data nuzba 4 nu'arki'a 8 nuzyxagji snura 8 nurcau 12 nurgau 2 nurprecau 4 nurpu'i 2 nurstapa Eaton data nuzba turni +nuzba +vasru snura nu +snura +zbasu na'e +snura +krici snura +krici snura +rinka snura +kurji snura +taxfu snura +zbasu +damba cabra +zbasu +snura +ja +mipri TLI dict. nuzba 3 init. snura 4 init. 91. In this case, not a lot of justification is needed, since the changes are primarily due to freeing up 'overkill rafsi' JC argued and convinced me that korcu does not need koc and it is dropped in this iteration. kob * ko'i 2 0 kob ko'i kobli 2 2 0 0 0 0 cabbag * * = 0 0 sko skori skoko'i 31 16 3 10 1 15 cord kor * * 0 0 kor koi korbi kobkoi 41 20 1 9 4 21 edge = * * 0 0 kro korcu korkro 26 20 2 10 4 6 bent ----- net benefit 2 92. In this one, it seems clear that derxi, though thus far little used, will be used primarily in final position - there are many kinds of heaps, but few heapish things. For the aesthetes, a rafsi with no 'x' may increase its use. Overkill justifies some change in dertu; the change proposed supports derxi at the cost of a CVV on little used desku. I argue on the basis of projected use, and not proven productivity which is indecisive. JC argues based on overkill, that dex, should be deleted, and the proposal is modified. = dre * 2 0 dre derxi dex 6 4 0 0 0 2 heap * - de'u 0 0 der de'u dertu derdre 64 41 11 16 7 23 dirt * * - 0 1 des desku desde'u 9 8 1 0 1 1 shake ----- net benefit 1 Lojban usage derxi 1 maurderxi desku 1 cmade'u TLI had lujvo for both of these, desku being a family of compounds of slilu, and derxi being either marji-cmana or marji-galtu-cmana depending on how big the pile was. 94. MS and NSN don't see much point. There is indeed a minimal justification, but on later thought, given only a 1 point gain vs. the unnatural and more hyphenating rafsi for cunso, I'm withdrawing this one. kusru kus 10 9 2 2 0 1 cruel ckunu ku'u 0 0 0 0 0 0 conife cunso cuncu'o 70 65 20 28 12 5 random cusku cussku 326 70 7 22 31 256 expres unchanged 95. JC MS NSN - 2 shrugs and a NO, but JC became undecided at LogFest review. Here is the data. Please revote. I won't fight either decision. * * di'o 7 0 dig di'o dirgo dig 15 8 4 0 0 7 drop * * - 0 7 - dinko di'o 7 3 0 1 2 4 nail ----- net benefit 0 Lojban data dirgo 8 digligykamju 1 jacdirgo 5 klakydirgo dinko 2 cardi'o Eaton data dirgo cerni +dirgo dinko-none TLI dict. dirgo - gismu but no lujvo dinko 1 init, 1 mid, 2 final (a good lesson in TLI semantics: cmalu dinko = tack/brad cmalu dinko gasnu = to tack dinko gasnu = to nail barda dinko = spike) Nora mentioned that 'staple' as a noun and verb would also use dinko. 97. JC noted an error; moklu was omitted from this list as picking up 'mok'. But I am having second thoughts - the choice is between the more natural 'mok' and the rarely hyphenated and status quo 'mol'. 97 is presumed approved. Please vote on 97a, with my leaning towards the status quo. mov * * 0 mov mo'i mor * * 1 1 mor morko mok 10 9 0 7 1 1 Morocc mon * * 0 0 mon mo'a morna mormo'a 129 110 4 101 1 19 patter 97a. * * * 0 0 mok mo'u moklu molmo'u 23 24 1 12 2 4 mouth 98. JC NSN MS all supported jve for je, and opposed all others. Easy to agree with. Modified: jo jov 0 0 0 0 0 0 tanru ju juv 0 0 0 0 0 0 tanru javni jva 73 45 5 18 18 28 rule jei jez 0 0 0 0 0 0 truth ja jav 11 11 0 0 11 0 tanru * jve * 0 0 jev jve je jev 5 5 0 0 5 0 tanru 99. JC NSN MS all agree that extra rafsi for ce are overkill, but the goal was to give a better rafsi to cecla, which has actually been used, as opposed to the only theoretical usage of ce. Per JC suggestion then, all but the CVC for ce has been removed from the proposal. cel * * 0 0 cel ce'a cecla cecce'a 28 12 0 7 2 16 launch cec * * 0 0 cec ce cel 0 0 0 0 0 0 set co ----- net benefit 0 100.-104. JC NSN MS all agreed that number rafsi were sacred, also affecting 4, 7, and 0 elsewhere in the set of changes. All are withdrawn. The other less-hyphenating changes ofr 101-103 were acceptable to all, and hence adopted. jom * * 0 0 jom jo'e joz 4 4 0 0 4 0 union pus * * 0 0 pus pu'i puz 0 0 0 0 0 0 can an tuf * * 0 0 tuf tu tuv 0 0 0 0 0 0 that y bi biv 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 xa xav 1 1 0 1 0 0 6 105. NSN argued that cokcu doesn't need cok either, and this is more or less agreeable. Proposal modified. * * co'u 0 co'u co'u = * = 0 0 cko cokcu cokckoco'u 4 3 0 1 0 1 soak 106.-134. JC NSN MS were generally opposed 'modulo exceptions'. We went thru these individually, and generally deleted 1 or 2 rafsi unless we really though there would be a lot of possible use. 106. bus * bu'i 0 bus bu'i bu approved 107. col * * 0 col co modified 108. * * co'a 0 co'a co'a modified 109. go'i rejected/withdrawn 110. * * jo'u 0 jo'u jo'u modified 111. mob * * 0 mob mo'a approved 112. * * * 0 0 ce'o ce'o ce'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 sequen status quo 113. com * * 0 0 com co'e co'e co'e 2 2 0 2 0 0 unspec approved 114. * * doi 0 0 don doi do don 5 5 1 4 0 0 you approved 115. * * * 0 0 fo'i fo'i fo'i 0 0 0 0 0 0 it-8 status quo 116. lem * * 0 0 lem le'e le'e 0 0 0 0 0 0 the st modified - these will probably allways occur in 1st position 117. lom * * 0 0 lom lo'e lo'e 0 0 0 0 0 0 the ty modified - these will probably allways occur in 1st position 118. * * * 0 0 nun nu nun 355 355 97 215 43 0 event status quo 119. * * * 0 0 nu'o nu'o nu'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 can bu status quo 120. * * * 0 0 sel se sel 880 880 136 460 284 0 2nd co status quo 121. sup * * 0 0 sup su'e su'e su'e 0 0 0 0 0 0 at mos approved 122. suz * * 0 0 suz su'o su'o su'o 2 2 2 0 0 0 at lea approved 123. * * * 0 0 ter te ter 176 176 26 120 30 0 3rd co status quo 124. * * * 0 0 vel ve vel 47 47 8 38 1 0 4th co status quo 125. * * * 0 0 ve'e ve'e ve'e 0 0 0 0 0 0 unspec status quo 126. * * * 0 0 von vo von 4 4 3 1 0 0 4 withdrawn - sacred 127. * * * 0 0 vuz vu vuz 13 13 8 0 5 0 yonder status quo 128. * * * 0 0 xem xe xem 0 0 0 0 0 0 5th co status quo 129. * * * 0 0 za'o za'o za'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 superf status quo 130. * * * 0 0 zel ze zel 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 withdrawn - sacred 131. * * * 0 0 ze'e ze'e ze'e 0 0 0 0 0 0 unspec status quo 132. zev * * 0 0 zev ze'o ze'o ze'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 recedi approved 133. zon * * 0 0 zon zo'a zo'a zo'a 0 0 0 0 0 0 tangen approved 134. zor * * 0 0 zor zo'i zo'i zo'i 0 0 0 0 0 0 approa approved 135. JC NSN MS all said this was overkill. Agreed at Logfest to drop both CVCs, retain foi because of some past usage. * * * 0 0 fo'a fo'a fo'a 1 1 0 0 1 0 it-6 * flo * 0 0 flo foi foldi folfoi 41 12 4 3 0 29 field 136. JC NSN MS agreed that this was overkill, CVCs deleted. * * * 0 0 fo'e fo'e fo'e 1 1 1 0 0 0 it-7 = * * 0 0 fro forca forfro 10 6 0 1 0 4 fork 137. JC NSN MS agreed that this was overkill - deletions made * * * 0 0 vaz va vaz 4 4 0 4 0 0 there = * = 0 0 vra vraga vagvrava'a 16 7 1 2 1 9 lever 138. JC felt diz was overkill, but accepted it as natural CVC from status quo. * dzi * 0 0 diz dzi dizlo diz 14 14 0 7 0 0 low * = * 0 0 zip zi'o dzipo zipdzizi'o 3 3 0 0 0 0 Antarc 145. NSN labelled this whole region for overkill, though John hadn't labelled this one, which was moving an 'overkill' rafsi from a less-used to a more-used gismu. But on mixre, the extra rafsi is the natural one, and actually might improve hyphenation. No such benefit applies to milxe, so it probably wouldn't be used. Thus, by NSN's general comment, this one is withdrawn. milxe mli 41 28 1 20 1 13 mild mixre mixxre 25 19 2 4 8 6 mixtur no changes 146. MS shrugged, but there really is a lot more non-final trixe than rirxe, and the one place rix might have been used apparently fell victim to aesthetics. Presumed approved. rix * * 0 0 rix ti'e trixe ti'e 57 45 11 23 6 12 behind - * * 0 0 ri'e rirxe rixri'e 40 28 8 13 0 12 river Lojban data trixe 7 cucti'e 10 jafti'e 1 nuntrixyga'abikla 2 ti'erbakfu 2 ti'erbongu 2 ti'erkansa 1 ti'ertu'e 8 trixystu rirxe 22 cmari'e 8 ri'emla 2 ri'erkrajinto Eaton data trixe nu +trixe +muvdu jamfu +trixe trixe +farna trixe +catlu trixe +claxu +klama trixe +cliva +prenu trixe +farna +klama rirxe rirxe +moklu rirxe +ganxo suksa +rirxe rirxe +sisti TLI dict. trixe 9 init 3 mid, 3 final rirxe 3 init 2 final 147. JC NSN thought sem was overkill, but ignored that te'o on terto is even more likley overkill. Modified to only drop extras on semto, others are status quo. terto tet 77 77 68 9 0 0 1E12 stero te'o 19 3 0 1 0 16 sterad = * = 0 0 sme semto semsmese'o 6 6 0 5 0 0 Semiti 148. MS was worried about robbing kelvo of 'kev'. The only use non-final that I can think of is for temperature/thermometer. Given how little known/understood kelvo is in the first place, I doubt that many will even consider kelvo for lujvo-making. 149. JC NSN argued overkill on bolci. I agree to drop bo'i, but believe that 'bol' deserves retention as natural status quo CVC, and is at least as justified as 'dei' for djedi, especially since there is no competition. JC agreed to the proposal as modified. * - loi 0 0 lot loi bloti lotblolo'i 81 54 18 21 9 27 boat * blo * 0 0 bol blo bolci bolboi 87 51 15 23 7 36 ball * * boi 0 0 bot boi botpi botbo'i 13 12 2 3 0 1 bottle * * lo'i 0 0 lol lo'i loldi lolloi 44 34 7 14 6 10 floor 154. MS argued for sacredness of gir for girzu. JC and NSN let this slip by their overkill sensors, for some reason. Based on both arguments, the entire proposal is withdrawn. jgira jgi 26 16 2 9 2 10 pride girzu girgri 197 76 27 17 25 121 group 158. JC NSN argue overkill. Proposal modified. * * * 0 0 kre kerfa kre 67 36 4 20 6 31 hair ref * * 0 0 ref ke'u krefu kefke'u 75 65 11 33 15 10 recur ----- ref is currently unassigned 159.-161. JC NSN MS all consider these a waste and overkill. I'm not sure since each offers possible alternatives in hyphenation situations in words that have much lujvo usage (well, except maybe petso, which hs only theoretical usage). I won't argue too hard. Withdrawn reluctantly. lip * * 0 0 lip vli vlipa vli 54 37 4 21 6 17 powerf * tso * 0 0 pet tso petso pet 77 77 68 9 0 0 1E15 tuc * * 0 0 tuc ctu ctuca ctu 53 26 3 10 2 31 teach 201. = * * 0 0 bru burcu bucbru 17 11 1 9 0 6 brush 202. = * * 0 0 cne cenba cebcne 256 125 4 20 95 131 vary 203. * * * 0 0 con cno coi condi concnocoi 30 30 9 12 3 0 deep not changed; semi-sacred - used in synopsis lujvo-making examples which depend on having a word with all 3 possibilities - I think it worthwhile to keep this one case of a word with all 3 rafsi, even if just for the purpose of making examples. 204. = * * 0 0 fle flecu fecfle 77 32 5 11 9 45 flow 205. = * * 0 0 fli fliba fibfli 42 21 3 13 2 21 fail 206. = * * 0 0 sfo sfofa fofsfo 8 5 0 1 0 3 sofa 207. = * = 0 0 fru frumu fumfrufu'u 6 3 0 0 0 3 frown 208. = * * 0 0 gra grake gakgra 20 2 0 1 0 18 gram 209. * * * 0 0 gic gli glico gicgli 42 35 0 29 0 7 Englis not changed; sacred 210. * * * 0 0 jaf jma jamfu jafjma 53 44 8 22 8 9 foot not changed; mildly sacred by heavy usage, if not by anyone's particular memory - people regularly have chosen jaf over jma for some reason, even when it forced hyphenation. The best example that overkill may be an intellectual aesthetic. 2 badjafyde'i 2 badjafyde'icalku 2 jaftamji 2 jaftamjycalku 10 jafti'e 211 = * * 0 0 kle lei klesi lesklelei 63 24 1 14 3 39 class changed but ambivalent on this; lei retained since it matches cmavo; may want to keep 'les', too in order to have a good second instance of all 3 rafsi besides condi - one that will minimally hyphenate with condi rafsi. 212 * * * 0 0 sev sne senva sevsne 27 19 2 12 0 8 dream not changed; significant use of sev over sne 2 sevdrari'a 1 sevycinse 10 sevycu'u 213. = * * 0 0 smo smoka soksmo 5 3 0 0 0 2 sock 214. = * * 0 0 sfu sufti sufsfu 0 0 0 0 0 0 hoof 215. * * * 0 0 val vla valsi valvla 154 73 19 34 12 81 word not changed; significant use of val over vla 1 valcku 1 valdre 4 valgerna 4 valkei 2 valnunkei 6 valselkei 1 valste 216. = * * 0 0 vre vreta vetvre 23 18 4 6 1 5 reclin changed but ???; some use of vet over vre, which remains unused 1 vetspi 217. * * = 0 0 vor vro vorme vorvrovo'e 38 11 0 0 4 27 door 218. = * * 0 0 xru xruti xutxru 36 16 0 10 0 20 return 219. = * * 0 0 zma mau zmadu zadzmamau 177 62 16 26 12 115 more mau sacred, even zad has seen usage, but zma does predominate 4 xagzadri'a 1 geizma 2 kazmaksi 2 zmadji 1 zmagei 14 zmanei 1 zmanelci 9 zmapluka 2 zmari'a 1 zmasatci 2 zmaslarai 2 zmaxau 5 badmau 2 bitmau 3 clanymau 2 cnimau 1 dubjavmau 1 galmau 1 glemau 1 jbimau 4 ladmau 1 lirmau 1 maugle 1 maurderxi 6 maurzau 1 nalxagmau 3 pa'ermau 3 racmau 2 rinxagmau 1 selkemselgeimau 1 selkemymaula'e 1 selselgeimau 1 selvlimau 2 selyla'emau 3 tagmau 4 tecmau 2 tepri'amau 2 tervlimau 4 tilmau 2 tormau 63 vlimau 31 xagmau 3 xagmaubi'o 1 xagmaugau 220. = * * 0 0 zmi zmiku zikzmi 16 12 4 7 0 4 automa 221. = * * 0 0 zdi zdile zilzdi 44 32 3 16 6 12 amusin changed, but ???; some usage of zil over zdi, but not a lot 6 zilsri 1 drizdi 2 kelzdi 1 nunselzdi 6 nunzdi 4 selzdi 2 selzdigei 10 zdifanza 222. = * * 0 0 zmu zumri zumzmu 7 7 1 2 0 0 maize