Re: [jbovlaste] {mumymasti} prevails over {mumyma'i}; are lujvo not canonicalized?

[Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com>]

It is indeed a bluff. I've accidentally entered too-high scoring lujvo before, namely {lekri'ami'i}, which should be {lekrikmi'i}. There's indeed some derp in the database, which could be the result of the Great Rafsi Shift. As far as I know, lujvo were created long ago by Nora in noralujv.txt but some time after their original creation, the rafsi were rearranged and some non-canonical lujvo survive to this very day. It's simply our duty to try using the best ones, ignoring the less-that-ideal ones in the dictionary. That being said, feel free to remove all the data from the page and leave a message in the notes with a link to the better lujvo.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

On 27 January 2013 15:38, Eitan Postavsky <eitanp32@gmail.com> wrote:

When you enter a word, it says "If it is a lujvo, make sure you're using the lowest scoring form of the lujvo. You're not going to get anywhere by using a different form, as the database is periodically swept for noncanonical form lujvo, and they are modified to the appropriate canonical form. (Or removed, and all related data pointed towards the canonical version, if it already exists.)". But {mumymasti} was entered in 2003 and survives, and its lowest scoring form is {mumyma'i}. Is the quoted message a bluff, then? heh.

_______________________________________________
jbovlaste mailing list
jbovlaste@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste

_______________________________________________
jbovlaste mailing list
jbovlaste@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste