Re: [bpfk] CLL errata check: lujvo scoring

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

Another way of presenting the same scores is:

CVV: +2918
CCV: +2929
CVC: +2949
CVhV: +3438
CVVr: +4018
CVCy: +4048
CCVCV: +4968
CVCCV: +4988
CCVCy: +5058
CVCCy: +5078

Since the algorithm already uses a "type-score" table anyway, I don't
really see the point of using anything other than a single type-score
table. Even more clear would be:

CVV: +1
CCV: +2
CVC: +3
CVhV: +4
CVVr: +4
CVCy: +5
CCVCV: +6
CVCCV: +6
CCVCy: +6
CVCCy: +6

which gives the same winning result. (The ones with the same score
never compete against one another.) But I suppose a score that goes
into the thousands sounds more impressive.

Or in human terms: "Fewest letters wins, and as tie-breaker the order
of preference is CVV > CCV > CVC".

The book says: "It is not the only possible algorithm, but it usually
gives a choice that people find preferable. The algorithm may be
changed in the future."

The algorithm doesn't take consonant clusters into account, so I'm not
sure how often it gives a choice that people find preferable. It
prefers "kixsku" to "ki'asku" for example, just because it's slightly
shorter, even though it has a "difficult" consonant cluster. Are we
going to devise a better algorithm? I think it would be better to give
priority to syllable structure rather than just letter count.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.