From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Jan 04 10:03:43 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 40402 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2007 18:02:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.33) by m25.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Jan 2007 18:02:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail8.sea5.speakeasy.net) (69.17.117.10) by mta7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Jan 2007 18:02:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 7640 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2007 18:01:41 -0000 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) (envelope-sender ) by mail8.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 4 Jan 2007 18:01:40 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H2Wu9-0005c6-Nu for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:01:32 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H2Wt7-0005XM-Tx; Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:00:44 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:59:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H2WrY-0005UZ-Pv for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:58:49 -0800 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.173]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H2WrF-0005Tn-20 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:58:48 -0800 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m3so5306089uge for ; Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:58:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.82.184.2 with SMTP id h2mr1996918buf.1167933491008; Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:58:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.82.115.20 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Jan 2007 09:58:10 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560701040958x13fadc8xb220fb9693abed24@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 14:58:10 -0300 In-Reply-To: <3ccac5f10701040724r44dfae9u9480f7dba69c9cb4@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3ccac5f10701040724r44dfae9u9480f7dba69c9cb4@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Score-Int: -24 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-archive-position: 13482 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Score-Int: -24 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "chain.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On 1/4/07, Cyril Slobin wrote: > > For the second goal I suggest the following two rules: > 1) Rafsi derived from cmavo is more affixish (has a higher priority) > than rafsi derived from gismu. [...] Content analysis details: (-2.5 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 69.17.117.10 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" Reply-To: jjllambias@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: Regular vs dictionary lujvo X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=DZK-CDUFhTXyY7i8WWbJJ9EfWsWlULzqUd17zLrdVubE_CWH-A X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 27922 On 1/4/07, Cyril Slobin wrote: > > For the second goal I suggest the following two rules: > 1) Rafsi derived from cmavo is more affixish (has a higher priority) > than rafsi derived from gismu. This might work for some cases, such as tol- or sel- but I don't think it will work for all cmavo with rafsi. For example, I think pav- tends to work more like a gismu. {pavyseljirna} is (a kind of) {seljirna be lo pa mei}, but I would say that {pavgau} is not a kind of {gasnu be lo pa mei} but {x1 gasnu be lo nu x2 pa mei}, "x1 unifies x2" i.e. more like an ordinary gau-lujvo. > 2) Unless the first rule gives an answer, rafsi at the end of lujvo is > more affixish (has a higher priority) than rafsi at te beginning of > lujvo. For example, malgau: {x1 gasnu lo nu x2 mabla}? I tend to agree. In general I think rafsi from gismu should never behave like true prefixes, but unfortunately some of them do seem to. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.