[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bpfk] lololol whole section missing?



In case the implicit question wasn't obvious:  Should I put this
back in?  Same with the other one.

-Robin

On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 08:29:20AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> Not sure how I missed this on the last run, but the Red Book has:
> 
> - --------------------------
> 
> <dt>4)  <dd>Any gismu forms that conflicted with existing gismu were removed. 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.
>                 </dl>
> <dl compact><p><p><cx "gismu, too-similar">  XE "gismu: too-similar"   <cx "gismu: creation, proscribed gismu pairs">  XE "gismu: cr
> eation, proscribed gismu pairs"
> <dt><dd>More subtly: If the proposed gismu was identical to an existing gismu except for a single consonant, and the consonant was "
> too similar” based on the following table, then the proposed gismu was rejected.
> <p><p>
> <dt>    <dd>proposed gismu                 existing gismu
> <p><p>
> <dt>            <dd>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
>         </dl>
> <p><p>  See <a href=#s4>Section 4 </a>for an example.
> <p>
> <dl compact><p>
> <cx "gismu creation, and transcription blunders">  XE "gismu: creation, and transcription blunders"
> <dt>5)  <dd>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 transcription blunders (for example, the gismu "gismu” should hav
> e been "gicmu”, but it's too late to fix it now).
>                 </dl>
> <p><cx "gismu, source-language weights for">  XE "gismu: source-language weights for"   The language weights used to make most of th
> e gismu were as follows:
> <p>
> <pre>   Chinese 0.36
>         English 0.21
>         Hindi           0.16
>         Spanish 0.11
>         Russian 0.09
>         Arabic          0.07
>                 </pre>reflecting 1985 number-of-speakers data. A few gismu were made much later <dl compact><p>
> <dt>using updated weights:      <dd>
> <p><p>
> <dt>    <dd>Chinese     0.347
>         Hindi           0.196
>         English 0.160
>         Spanish 0.123
>         Russian 0.089
>         Arabic          0.085
>                 </dl>
> <p>(English and Hindi switched places due to demographic changes.)
> <p>
> Note that the stressed vowel of the gismu was considered sufficiently distinctive that two or more gismu may differ only in this vowel; as an extreme example, "bradi”, "bredi”, "bridi”, and "brodi” (but fortunately not "brudi”) are all existing gismu.
> 
> - --------------------------
> 
> Now, dag-cll in the same place:
> 
>           <para>Any gismu forms that conflicted with existing gismu were removed. Obviously, being identical with an existing gismu constitutes 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.</para>
>         </listitem>
>       </varlistentry>
>       <varlistentry>
>         <term>5)</term>
>         <listitem>
>           <para>The gismu form with the highest score usually became the actual gismu. Sometimes a lower-scoring form was used to provide a better rafsi. A few gismu were changed in error as a result of transcription blunders (for example, the gismu
>           <quote>gismu</quote> should have been
>           <quote>gicmu</quote>, but it's too late to fix it now).</para>
>         </listitem>
>       </varlistentry>
>     </variablelist>
>     <para>Note that the stressed vowel of the gismu was considered sufficiently distinctive that two or more gismu may differ only in this vowel; as an 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
> 
> -- 
> 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/
> 
> -- 
> 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@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.
> 

-- 
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/

-- 
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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.