Message-Id: <199208211600.AA14176@munagin.ee.mu.OZ.AU> To: lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group) Cc: c.j.fine@bradford.ac.uk, cowan@snark.thyrsus.com, shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu, nsn@mullian.ee.Mu.OZ.AU From: nsn@ee.mu.oz.au Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 02:00:57 +1000 Content-Length: 8448 Lines: 302 I believe in eliminating "rafsi overkill". Not universally, not unquestion- ingly; after all, when the choice is between CVC and CVV, there are good reasons to go for CVC. But I do believe in rafsi space sparseness and a reduction in multiple forms as a guiding principle. 2. I'd still like {banli} to keep {bal} ({ba'i} can stay or go. Otherwise OK. Eaton: >darno +flalu +bajra Hilarious! :) 6. The usage made of {cmila} in lujvo still doesn't seem to me sufficient to justify this change (understatement plus). I don't think {mi'i} initial is criminal for {minji} though. I'm making my vote a SHRUG. 7. It amuses me that *all* the kalsa lujvo are mine, though I've also seen a lot of lujvo with {cunso} where {kalsa} would be much more appropriate. 8. SHRUG. Sack or knife... *shrug* 10-11 approved. 13 approved reluctantly (that is, I approve fin for frinu, rather than fi'u, though I still much prefer my proposal; finti, I think, deserves both rafsi, and I still like the cmavo link). 15 approved. The cisyjvo didn't look that outlandish to me! :) 19. Oh this is regrettable: I liked the smooth-hyphened {gar} for {gapru}, ({garkla} has stuck in my head), and would rather we ditched having a rafsi for garna than this. But I'm not putting my foot down. 20 OK. >21. >NSN noted that the data for curnu is erroneous, being based on his errors. Not fair, nuncle; Colin Fine, at least, has made the same error in Andersen. >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. Absolutely. Do it. I'll learn to live with 21... There are good (and sacredness-assaulting) assignments in it. 22, 76. Cool. >24. NSN took an interesting position on this one. It took me an hour to get from 24 to 150, Bob; cut me some slack :) >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. Nice try :) Actually, it's so because {nai} for {natmi} is much less assailable than {fei} for {fepni} --- though I've started wondering whether it isn't, and whether in fact {natmi} shouldn't get {na'i}, and {nakni} --- {nai}. Double standard or not, reversible or not, these rafsi *will* get heavy usage. My mind has not been changed on this; now I'm thinking about switching {na'i} and {nai}, I've turned even more intransigent on you :) After all, there's no need to have Fepni first in a lujvo if it still keeps {fe'i}! *My* proposal is: {na'i} to natmi, {nai} to {nakni}, {fe'i} to fepni, {fei} to fetsi, and don't worry about nalci. (btw, I want the CVV for all-cases-covered hyphening, not for suffixing; my Esperanto is not coming into play here; I intend to use both nakni and fetsi as prefixes. If noone else supports me on this one, then have it your way; but you haven't convinced me. 27. sla for {salci} OK by me 32. I reluctantly approve of this one; it still seems disruptive to me (inter alia, {sa'e} is somewhat sacred for me). 33. If at all possible, switch the rafsi for {tadji} and {tarmi}, not their sumtcita; I've gotten *very* attached to {tai} for {tadji}. Otherwise, OK. 37. Thanks. this one made my week :) .i mi toldri toldri toldri lenu zo tol. rafsi zo toldi vau.ui 43. You omit the more recent malticta'axlu of the phone game. Still, let it through. 47. I'm making my vote a shrug. {rinju} may well deserve two rafsi' {rijno} may well not deserve any. 48. I still think {ger} looks odd with {gerku}, but I won't argue. 51. This data still doesn't support a rafsi for tamji: >2 jaftamji taj is no help here >2 jaftamjycalku nor here --- and such compounds, with nonfinal tamji, are very rare. >tamji +clani Thumb-long? won't be missed >tamji +ganra This neither. There is no good reason I can see to give {tamji} {tau}. 52. I'll learn to like this, but I still think this is a mistake. *shrug* Make the change anyway, I can't really argue it convincingly. 55 looks alright. 59, 65. OK >68. NSN is opposed, being suspicious of lujvo involving ladru. Why? >Have you never seen a dairy farm, eaten or drunk dairy products, etc. Not lately; trying to cut down on my cholesterol :) I'll cope with it. 72. Fine, don't change it. 81. Good move. 84. I still oppose. With very little lujvo-final use for either degji or denci, and with {dei} so sacred and *handy*, I still do. See my review of the data. I propose {dei} retutn from {degji} to {djedi}. >The dinri problem has been solved - based on the ckamu, mleca precedent, Allow me the indulgance of scowling at you for springing this on me. *scowl* Still, if it had to be done... >Lojban data >denci >26 xantydenmai Ivory >1 dentro Looks Greek to me >2 badjafyde'i jaftamji >2 badjafyde'icalku jaftamjycalku >2 badyde'i tamji >4 degjai no de'i >1 degnuncinse no de'i >2 pavde'i pavdei? (Sunday) >djedi >11 bavlamdei djedi >2 bendei djedi >30 cabdei djedi/donri >13 dedmidju donri >1 djesni donri >1 djetei donri >1 glejbedei djedi >1 glesalcydei djedi >3 midydei donri >2 midydeisa'i donri >8 nacykefydei djedi >1 pavnondei djedi >9 prulamdei djedi (donri) >11 purlamdei djedi (donri) >4 roldei djedi (donri) >10 saldei djedi (donri) >1 zandei donri (djedi) >Eaton data (no degji or denci final) >pa +djedi God knows. >re +purci +cabna +djedi Que? >djedi +krasi Dawn? (donri) >gleki +djedi Good Morning?! (donri, I suppose) >jbena +djedi djedi >morji +djedi djedi, and why the hell is this here? >djedi +liste djedi >djedi +xriso +re +moi +jbena djedi (donri) >djedi +morji +cukta djedi >ciste +djedi +nanca ...djedi? Non comprende >TLI dict. > xriso djedi djedi > midju djedi donri > lamji djedi djedi (donri) > ro djedi djedi > purci djedi djedi (donri) > jbena djedi djedi > djedi nicte (our djedi) donri > djedi sinxa donri? > balvi lamji djedi djedi (donri) > purci lamji djedi djedi (donri) > djedi sinxa ciska djedi 85. The reason we have not yet used {zarci} in any lujvo is bad keyword --- it never occured to us that zarci is "shop"! For mundaneness, {zai} to zarci, not {zasti}. 90. OK, though there's no final usage for either. 91. Can't see why you're all getting so worked up about cabbage :) , and if romge doesn't deserve 2 rafsi, neither does kobli. Otherwise OK 92. OK, I guess... 94. cusku has a rafsi cus?! wow, i never knew (this should tell you something. Somethink like "overkill" :) 95. {di'o} to dinko, and {dig} may as well be deallocated; it doesn't seem to be doing much good there. 97a. status quo (Great band, I hear :) 99. Nah, not worth it. {ce} deserves {cel} (but not sixteen other rafsi :) Likely to deserve it in the long run more than cecla. status quo. >113. >com * * 0 0 com co'e co'e co'e 2 2 0 2 0 0 unspec co'e will have final use. Give it {co'e} >114. >* * doi 0 0 don doi do don 5 5 1 4 0 0 you give it don; will be used word initial, so deserves smooth hyphening >128. >* * * 0 0 xem xe xem 0 0 0 0 0 0 5th co It would be nice, you know, even if impossible, for this to be {xel} --- it's used so little, and the analogy with {vel/sel} so pervasive, that {xem} is just asking for trouble (and has found it, boosting {xel}'s score). 149. Having dropped {bo'i}, return to to {botpi}, and let the not unsacred {boi} return to bolci, bolstering status quo 158. Cool 159,161 Change my vote to a shrug: I'll go along with what Mark/John say. >203. >* * * 0 0 con cno coi condi concnocoi 30 30 9 12 3 0 deep The rationale doesn't impress me, but i won't argue, it's 2 am :) >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. Simple reason: jma isn't memorable as the rafsi of jamfu; jaf is. Don't change it: watching people misremember these rafsi will be fun :) >211 this example of 3 rafsi business *really* doesn't convince me --- but it's still 2am :) >216. Nah, change it. >219. {zad} usage is negligible. {zma} usage is not recent. Kill {zad} as proposed. >221. Mmm. I'd keep {zil}; it's a nice hyphen. Thank you, and good evening :)