From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Jan 04 11:11:03 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 22611 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2007 19:05:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m24.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Jan 2007 19:05:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net) (69.17.117.5) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Jan 2007 19:05:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 32560 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2007 18:58:57 -0000 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) (envelope-sender ) by mail3.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 4 Jan 2007 18:58:57 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H2Xnj-00072K-Dq for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:58:56 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H2XnJ-00071S-Gs; Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:58:33 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:57:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H2XlW-00070t-S6 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:56:57 -0800 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.225]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1H2Xl5-00070N-ON for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:56:34 -0800 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id s1so356493nze for ; Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:55:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.35.27.1 with SMTP id e1mr26075045pyj.1167936946108; Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:55:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.35.69.14 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:55:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <12d58c160701041055p606595ebsb0147e4f202b2700@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 13:55:46 -0500 In-Reply-To: <3ccac5f10701040724r44dfae9u9480f7dba69c9cb4@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_11090_12465104.1167936946068" References: <3ccac5f10701040724r44dfae9u9480f7dba69c9cb4@mail.gmail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1ba238e08a53b421 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 X-Spam-Score-Int: -15 X-Spam-Bar: - X-archive-position: 13483 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: komfoamonan@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -1.5 X-Spam-Score-Int: -14 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: > > coi rodo > > We all know that: > 1) Tanru have many possible meanings and you must guess the right one > from context. > 2) Lujvo have one meaning and you must to look up it from dictionary. > > But in reality we have a class of a "regular" lujvo which meaning > anyone can guess. I will not bother to dig into the dictionary for a > lujvo starting with sel- or tol- or ending with -mau or -gau. And if a > dictionary will give a different meaning than I have guessed, I will > conclude that this dictionary is Bad, Wrong and Evil. > > But there is a trap. Consider a lujvo "pofygau". Almost anyone will > understand it as "to break (agentive)", and this meaning is listed in > gimste. But someone in lojban_ru community noted that other possible > meaning is "to be a broken agent", "to be unable to cause something". > I believe that most of the sane lojbanists will prefer the first > meaning over the second. Why? Because the "something+gau" pattern is > much more recognizable than "pof+something". "-gau" is more affixish > than "pof-". > > So, I conclude, it will be a Good Thing to have a list of common lujvo > patterns that need not be listed in dictionary, and to have a rule to > resolve conflicts when a given lujvo match two or more patterns. > > 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. > 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. > > Any comments? [...] Content analysis details: (-1.5 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 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 1.4 HTML_10_20 BODY: Message is 10% to 20% HTML -0.3 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 69.17.117.5 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: "komfo,amonan" From: "komfo,amonan" Reply-To: komfoamonan@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: Regular vs dictionary lujvo X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=yBNmNFma9Mrpvh3ZN42KSJS8jfaUvJtMFd6TgscvcdWW3AnpWA X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 27923 ------=_Part_11090_12465104.1167936946068 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 1/4/07, Cyril Slobin wrote: > > coi rodo > > We all know that: > 1) Tanru have many possible meanings and you must guess the right one > from context. > 2) Lujvo have one meaning and you must to look up it from dictionary. > > But in reality we have a class of a "regular" lujvo which meaning > anyone can guess. I will not bother to dig into the dictionary for a > lujvo starting with sel- or tol- or ending with -mau or -gau. And if a > dictionary will give a different meaning than I have guessed, I will > conclude that this dictionary is Bad, Wrong and Evil. > > But there is a trap. Consider a lujvo "pofygau". Almost anyone will > understand it as "to break (agentive)", and this meaning is listed in > gimste. But someone in lojban_ru community noted that other possible > meaning is "to be a broken agent", "to be unable to cause something". > I believe that most of the sane lojbanists will prefer the first > meaning over the second. Why? Because the "something+gau" pattern is > much more recognizable than "pof+something". "-gau" is more affixish > than "pof-". > > So, I conclude, it will be a Good Thing to have a list of common lujvo > patterns that need not be listed in dictionary, and to have a rule to > resolve conflicts when a given lujvo match two or more patterns. > > 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. > 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. > > Any comments? I think on the contrary that eventually there ought to be an unabridged dictionary that includes these lujvo. Small benefit: Inclusion of such lujvo would more easily allow beginners to read or get the gist of texts that would otherwise be above their level. Larger benefit: There are some ambiguities with, e.g., {tol-}. {tolpa'i}: some might translate this as "x1 hates ...", others as "x1 is indifferent toward ...". And what of something like {tolge'u}? Perhaps inclusion of the obvious lujvo would serve to imply rejection of the excluded. mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan ------=_Part_11090_12465104.1167936946068 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On 1/4/07, Cyril Slobin <slobin@ice.ru> wrote:
coi rodo

We all know that:
1) Tanru have many possible meanings and you must guess the right one
from context.
2) Lujvo have one meaning and you must to look up it from dictionary.

But in reality we have a class of a "regular" lujvo which meaning
anyone can guess. I will not bother to dig into the dictionary for a
lujvo starting with sel- or tol- or ending with -mau or -gau. And if a
dictionary will give a different meaning than I have guessed, I will
conclude that this dictionary is Bad, Wrong and Evil.

But there is a trap. Consider a lujvo "pofygau". Almost anyone will
understand it as "to break (agentive)", and this meaning is listed in
gimste. But someone in lojban_ru community noted that other possible
meaning is "to be a broken agent", "to be unable to cause something".
I believe that most of the sane lojbanists will prefer the first
meaning over the second. Why? Because the "something+gau" pattern is
much more recognizable than "pof+something". "-gau" is more affixish
than "pof-".

So, I conclude, it will be a Good Thing to have a list of common lujvo
patterns that need not be listed in dictionary, and to have a rule to
resolve conflicts when a given lujvo match two or more patterns.

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.
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.

Any comments?

I think on the contrary that eventually there ought to be an unabridged dictionary that includes these lujvo.

Small benefit: Inclusion of such lujvo would more easily allow beginners to read or get the gist of texts that would otherwise be above their level.

Larger benefit: There are some ambiguities with, e.g., {tol-}. {tolpa'i}: some might translate this as "x1 hates ...", others as "x1 is indifferent toward ...". And what of something like {tolge'u}? Perhaps inclusion of the obvious lujvo would serve to imply rejection of the excluded.

mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan
------=_Part_11090_12465104.1167936946068--