Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PWWzv-0007uk-P0; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 08:29:41 -0800 Received: by pzk9 with SMTP id 9sf809116pzk.16 for ; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 08:29:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:mail-followup-to:mime-version:user-agent :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DtA5qlIxAXAy2AMp16EW45o4dnFK01QVBDj5o33NgAk=; b=bqG51dpxAHS61Ha/+QgQaxQjqt1IEm211t0982UTtr1kLDFNqgfqXILq9rvgNsZZB8 coh2TPzMR8bxWsR4Nkn/G/sujmje9uf99ddtiGkMGYcilYj4hx2ipE0JX2WrY/lhUsq+ pUAAS+0I3SH3aj0iYP+VW3N7YKHN42zuipJTw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:mime-version:user-agent:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-disposition :content-transfer-encoding; b=54ckpO/S/w9RpVcHBuua1bN845OCLb1n2nRBjc01Hnt0+gc2VCHeVB3RlA9ommI4rx yd0J2hl9gC0UtXDE1PWt2wk1b8A9mJIMIAnkperMDe/nBVKEGgjxqYHYnpJQ6R4sspVU ibt4iLaSvb8slaUJL1LjwqFeBxDdIvpcbGoHE= Received: by 10.142.250.38 with SMTP id x38mr526286wfh.59.1293294564306; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 08:29:24 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.2.41 with SMTP id 41ls11746259wfb.0.p; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 08:29:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.83.1 with SMTP id g1mr7870033wfb.35.1293294563718; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 08:29:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.83.1 with SMTP id g1mr7870032wfb.35.1293294563683; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 08:29:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org (digitalkingdom.org [173.13.139.234]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p40si10803489wfc.6.2010.12.25.08.29.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 25 Dec 2010 08:29:23 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of nobody@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.234 as permitted sender) client-ip=173.13.139.234; Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PWWzh-0007iV-Fc for bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 08:29:21 -0800 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PWWzg-0007i4-PV for bpfk@lojban.org; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 08:29:21 -0800 Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 08:29:20 -0800 From: Robin Lee Powell To: bpfk@lojban.org Subject: [bpfk] lololol whole section missing? Message-ID: <20101225162920.GA29638@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: bpfk@lojban.org MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Original-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of nobody@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.234 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=nobody@digitalkingdom.org Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Length: 5099 Not sure how I missed this on the last run, but the Red Book has: - --------------------------

Any gismu forms that conflicted with existing gismu were remove= d. Obviously, being identical with an existing gismu cons titutes a conflict. In addition, a proposed gismu that was identical to an = existing gismu except for the final vowel was considered a conflict, since two such gismu would have identical 4-letter rafsi.

XE "gismu: too-similar" XE "gismu: cr eation, proscribed gismu pairs"

More subtly: If the proposed gismu was identical to an existing gis= mu except for a single consonant, and the consonant was " too similar=94 based on the following table, then the proposed gismu was re= jected.

proposed gismu existing gismu

b p, v c j, s d t f p, v g k, x j c, z k g, x l r m n n m p b, f r l s c, z t d v b, f x g, k z j, s

See Section 4 for an example.

5): The gismu form with the highest score usually became the actual= gismu. Sometimes a lower-scoring form was used to provid e a better rafsi. A few gismu were changed in error as a result of transcri= ption blunders (for example, the gismu "gismu=94 should hav e been "gicmu=94, but it's too late to fix it now).

XE "gismu: source-language we= ights for" The language weights used to make most of th e gismu were as follows:

   Chinese 0.36
        English 0.21
        Hindi           0.16
        Spanish 0.11
        Russian 0.09
        Arabic          0.07

reflecting 1985 number-of-speakers data. A few gismu = were made much later

using updated weights:

Chinese 0.347 Hindi 0.196 English 0.160 Spanish 0.123 Russian 0.089 Arabic 0.085

(English and Hindi switched places due to demographic changes.)

Note that the stressed vowel of the gismu was considered sufficiently disti= nctive that two or more gismu may differ only in this vowel; as an extreme = example, "bradi=94, "bredi=94, "bridi=94, and "brodi=94 (but fortunately no= t "brudi=94) are all existing gismu. - -------------------------- Now, dag-cll in the same place: Any gismu forms that conflicted with existing gismu were re= moved. Obviously, being identical with an existing gismu constitutes a conf= lict. In addition, a proposed gismu that was identical to an existing gismu= except for the final vowel was considered a conflict, since two such gismu= would have identical 4-letter rafsi. 5) The gismu form with the highest score usually became the ac= tual gismu. Sometimes a lower-scoring form was used to provide a better raf= si. A few gismu were changed in error as a result of transcription blunders= (for example, the gismu gismu should have been gicmu, but it's too late to fix it now). Note that the stressed vowel of the gismu was considered sufficie= ntly distinctive that two or more gismu may differ only in this vowel; as a= n extreme example, - -------------------------- You'll notice that this is just a teensy-weensy difference, and that dag-cll is Rather Shorter. What do I do with this? -Robin --=20 http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future. Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false" is "na nei". My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/ --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= BPFK" group. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googleg= roups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-l= ist?hl=3Den.