From lojbab@lojban.org Wed Sep 19 15:46:49 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 19 Sep 2001 22:46:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 81177 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2001 22:46:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 19 Sep 2001 22:46:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-1.cais.net) (205.252.14.71) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Sep 2001 22:46:48 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (ppp18.net-A.cais.net [205.252.61.18]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f8JMkkH86765 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 18:46:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010919183015.00cbcf00@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 18:43:31 -0400 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] META : Who is everyone (and what are they saying) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10875 At 01:33 PM 9/19/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote: >#>>> "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" 09/19/01 01:01am >>> >#The problem is that Zipfean processes usually only work once we know that >#we will be using an excessively long formulation, and until you use >#something a few times, we don't know what excessively long formulation >#needs to be Zipfed in that we can't see what the repetitive pattern is that >#we are trying to abbreviate. The abbreviations we do have, like soi and >#sei and many of the UI like po'o, we were able to predict from natlang >#patterns, but you are posing new abbreviatable patterns possibly lacking >#parallel in the natural laanguages. > >I know this, and it's clear that a pioneering loglang can't foresee everything >that needs to be zipfed down. What I mean is that even when usage shows >what needs to be zipfed down, we then have no way to do the zipfing. >The morphology affords us no spare class of short cmavo, What do you think was the point/intent of the experimental cmavo space, if not precisely to deal with this. There aren't a lot of "short" cmavo, but "short" is relative here - there are 4 xVVs and 25 xV'Vs and we ultimately have the option of using the last few unused cmavo in regular cmavo space. It hasn't been made clear that there are that many Zipfean shortenings that are so commonly used as to warrant the shortest forms in the language. No doubt, if usage proved such to be the case, then postbaseline revision would find a few of the lerfu and Mex words that Jorge despises, being displaced by things that have proven more useful. >and the Lojban >project has not countenanced a stage at some point in the future when >zipf adjustments are made. Of course we have. That is exactly the sort of thing that I expect will be discussed after the baseline period ends (discussion not necessarily leading to change, but certainly considering it). I just don't want to discuss it until then, because we would need the usage information to make such decisions, and I want the decisions based on a more widespread Lojban use than would likely exist if we continued to talk about tinkering. >I have, though, seen one indication of zipfing down of lujvo: > > tilju x1 is a pedant [Adjective pedantic] (This was made by > shortening the > lujvo tilju'edu'u, which is perhaps the most 'proper' word for this > concept) > >http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?Slang%20gismu That is a suggested slang term. Has it actually seen usage? I have little respect for wild suggestions that aren't actually used, especially since "terki" and a couple other old Loglan creations (there was one gismu coined for x1 encroaching on x2's personal "space", as I recall). We might also encode gismu for all the unique Laadan concepts as well by the same logic. But proposals without actual usage to back them are empty. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org