[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[no subject]
Following is the near-final report on the rafsi review, incorporating
comments from Nick, Mark, Colin, John Cowan, Nora and David Twery, with
all issues looked over at least twice. A few changes remained undecided
because the decision needed to be based on the supporting data, which
I've added herein. A few others were modified per your comments, and
presumably will be acceptable. I will presume that the proposals as
explained will be approved unless people object, since except as noted,
Cowan, Nora, Twery, and I all agreed to them at LogFest. But feel free
to speak up. I will minimize repetition of data from the earlier report
to keep this short.
Note that I cannot easily draw in from the hundred or more pages of
handwritten notes of lujvo proposals in the files. Some of these lujvo
came from the Roget's work, hence help give breadth of semantic
coverage; others were proposed in the pages of The Loglanist, or by
Nora, Tommy and me when we were arguing about what should and shouldn't
be in the gismu list. There also may be redundancy, of course, since I
have no easy check to see if a proposal has been made more than once in
Loglan history.
Approved without further comment
1, 3-4, 10, 12, 14, 16-18, 23, 26, 28-31, 34, 36, 41, 44-46, 49-50,
53-54, 56-58, 61-63, 66-67, 69-71, 73-75, 77, 79-80, 82-83, 88-89, 93,
96, 101-103, 139-144, 151-153, 155-157
Approved, but comments/justification provided. Can be reconsidered if
someone asks.
5, 8-9, 11, 19-20, 25, 32, 33, 35 (78), 40, 43, 47, 48, 51-2, 59, 64,
68, 86, 90, 97, 106, 111, 113-4, 121-2, 132-4, 138, 146, 148
Modified/Open Issues Please Revote. Benefit of doubt towards approval.
2, 6-7, 13, 15, 21 (76), 22, 24 (150), 27, 37 (38), 39, 42, 55, 65, 84, 85
91-92, 95, 97a, 98-99, 105, 107-8, 110, 116-7, 135-7, 147, 149, 158
Rejected/Withdrawn based on comments
72, 81, 87, 94, 100, 104, 109, 112, 115, 118-20, 123-31, 145, 154, 159-161
Alternate proposals B&C received no particular support as written.
Alternate proposal A was partly incorporated into a revised #15. Alternate
Proposal D was rendered moot by changing the gismu.
Cowan asked me to check unmodified status quo for 'overkills' with CCV
and something else that can be deleted per the standards set in this
review. These are at the end, numbered starting from 201. I erred on
the side of the status quo on these. I tended to keep 'natural' CVCs or
CVCs starting with a different letter than the CCV when there was
significant 1st position usage, and to drop CV'Vs. Only the changes are
given unless I had a special comment.
Even with this conservative approach, you will note that several of the
cases where there is a CVC and a CCV available, people have regularly
chosen the CVC, sometimes even when hyphenation is needed, and sometimes
when the CVC isn't even the 'natural' one (e.g. jaf/jamfu and
gic/glico). This to me calls into question the whole idea of
'overkill', and suggests that people prefer a CVC to almost anything
else if they can find one. Accepting this as a factor SHOULD cause us
NOT to make the changes associated with overkill, and indeed to go the
other direction if possible. But I leave the vote to you guys. A
general vote on the question of deleting rafsi due to 'overkill' when
there is already a CCV is appreciated, and any consensus will cause me
to globally undo other changes in this report without further vote.
Again, as with the case of CV'V in final position, what logical analysis
tells us 'should' be good, does not seem to reflect what people choose
in practice. I have been a maximalist on rafsi assignments to give
people in the post-design phase more choices rather than make the
choices in advance for them. Who are we to say that Chinese Lojbanists
wouldn't prefer vowel rich CVVs (with or without the ') over the
consonant clusters of CCV and most CVC compounds? On the other hand, I
am willing to accept the minimalist argument, as long as all you people
are sure that is the right thing to do. (I can also, if people want, be
more agressively minimalist - there are another 30 or so instances of
CVC and CCV for a single word, generally each starting with a different
letter, which I omitted from changing because hyphenation may justify
keeping both.)
_____________
ITEMIZED LIST
-------------
2. NSN considered bal to be very useful on banli and I agree. The
change that gives bra to barda, however, makes that word a bit more
effective than it used to be in initial position, weakening this
argument. He claims bajra is only used in bajrykla, put the data shows
otherwise (and this will after all be a much used word in combination
with klama, litru, plipe, etc.) If there is still strong feeling on
banli, the change of baj is separable from the rest, since bajra has the
statistics to take baj from balji even if balji doesn't get 'bal'. But
then the net benefit drops to 5 (actually 11 after correcting the typos
noted in the actual data). I would not argue with this modification,
given examination of the data, though the Eaton data, while profusive,
is of course highly suspect.
MS agreed with Nick on bajra.
baj * * 29 13 baj bajra 29 16 1 12 3 13 run
bal * * 1 1 bal balji baj 14 13 1 3 8 1 bulb
- * ba'i 16 0 ba'i banli bal 89 73 24 28 14 16 great
* * - 0 15 bav balvi bavba'i 97 82 21 40 15 15 future
----- net benefit 17
Supporting data
Lojban usage
balji: (all three of these appear to be typos that actually support bajra)
10 terbajli'a
1 bajli'a
8 sukybajykla
bajra:
37 bajryjvi
1 bajrykla
19 bajrystu
1 cidbajrygre
2 cidbajrykla
3 nunbajra
banli:
12 balcu'e
2 baldakfyxai
48 balkumfa
2 balrai
2 baltutra
1 balxau
36 mlebanli
1 vribanli
balvi:
2 ba'ispe
3 ba'ivla
2 lamba'i
1 bavla'i
11 bavlamdei
9 bavlamjeftu
11 bavlamji
2 bavma'a
1 bavseljbe
TLI Eaton proposals
balji - none
bajra - 5 usages in final position that using our place struture would
require bajrykla or some relative. These were not counted, since I made
no such modifications to Eaton data based on place structure
differences. But they further enhance the benefit to bajra.
pagre +bajra
darno +bajra
darno +bajra
darno +flalu +bajra
drata +stuzi +bajra
banli:
nu +banli +jikca +dansu
banli +snada
banli +jvinu
melbi +banli
carmi +banli
natmi +banli
banli +sanmi
banli +sinma
banli +natmi
srana +banli +se +ciska
banli +mukti +xebni
banli +sidbo +prenu
muvdu +banli +melbi
jbena +turni +banli
banli +jikca +dansu
melbi +banli +jinga
banli +turni +ninmu
melbi +banli +penmi +tavla
banli +jubme +since
banli +jbena +turni
banli +dansu +fasnu
gunka +banli +fuzme
balvi:
pa +balvi +pa
na'e +purci +na'e +balvi
balvi +cliva
balvi +jmive
balvi +krici
dunra +balvi
citri +balvi
balvi +cinse
balvi +senpi
balvi +ciska
balvi +tavla
punji +balvi +ti
srera +balvi +zbasu
sorcu +dunda +balvi
dacti +balvi +morsi +fo'a +se +ciska
TLI dictionary
balji 1 initial, 1 final
banli 7 initial, 2 final
balvi 11 initial 1 medial 6 final
bajra 1 initial, 2 final (equates to net 3 non-final due to place structures)
5. NSN questioned the evidence for this one, though he voted yes.
Rechecking the data shows some clear benefit to sanji, with little
negative to pajni since it retains its Cvv. Presumed approved.
saj * * 26 8 saj sanji 26 18 0 7 5 8 consci
paj * * 4 4 paj spaji saj 17 13 3 5 0 4 surpri
- * * 0 0 pai pajni pajpai 63 20 0 10 4 43 judge
----- net benefit 18
Lojban usage:
sanji
2 cmesanji
9 nalsanji
spaji: none
pajni
6 pajvrude
12 jvipai
3 maptypai
2 pantypai
7 selxlupai
2 xaurpai
1 zugypai
Eaton data
sanji
sanji +cirko
spaji
bebna +spaji
suksa +spaji
barda +spaji
mutce +spaji
spaji +suksa
pajni
pajni +prije
zifre +pajni
purci +pajni
casnu +pajni
zifre +zukte +jicmu +pajni
catlu +claxu +pajni
rarna +drani +pajni
galtu +pajni +stuzi
vamji +pajni
TLI dictionary
pajni 2 initial 2 medial 4 final
sanji 1 initial 1 final
spaji 2 initial
6. NSN feels that cmila needed justification. MS saw some justification
and proposed two cmila initial position lujvo. The supporting data thus
gives 7 initial, 2 medial, 5 final for cmila, all 14 of which are
supported by mi'a. Stretching to include the TLI lujvo, jmina has 3
initial and 7 final, thus giving 3 supportable by min and 10 supported
by mi'a. But I will note that the jmina lujvo have had significantly
more usage, so if word frquency is allowed for, the comparison is much
closer. NSN's argument in favor of mid for midju isn't convincing to
me, but I will agree that the changed set of rafsi results in less
'natural' assignments than the old set, and minji is left with a fairly
mediocre rafsi for those times when it is found initially. I won't
fight too hard for this one if Nick still thinks it is bad.
* * mi'a 26 0 mi'a cmila 26 17 3 5 2 9 laugh
min * - 0 12 min jmina mi'a 30 18 0 9 3 12 add
mid * * 0 0 mid mi'e minde minmi'e 81 47 12 13 15 34 comman
mij * * 11 11 mij midju mid 50 39 8 21 5 11 middle
- * * 0 0 mi'i minji mijmi'i 37 12 2 4 2 25 machin
----- net benefit 14
Lojban usage
cmila
2 cmacmila
1 cmilype'u
1 cmilyri'ape'u
1 cmilysatre
jmina
1 jonmi'a
8 mi'acru
10 mi'arbe'i
1 mi'arci'a
6 poirmi'a
7 selmi'a
1 velmi'a
1 zbaselmi'a
minji
1 mi'ispi
1 taxmi'i
2 tergu'imi'i
Eaton data
cmila
nu +cmila +culno
se +cmila
suksa +cmila
spoja +cmila
cmila +spoja
zmadu +cmila +dacti
sutra +cenba +cmila
cmila +krinu +pilno
jmina has no TLI gismu equivalent; it is a 2-place lujvo with 2 final
position equivalents in the TLI dictionary; cmila has a TLI gismu
equivalent but had no lujvo based on it in the dictionary.
minji
muvdu +zbasu +mlana +minji
minji +gidva +bloti
3 initial 6 final in TLI dictionary
7. CF had a strong dislike for this one, the only one he objected to,
asking for data on karce, kancu, and kalsa. Mark shrugged, Cowan
thought karce initial was fairly worthless. I think the data supports a
switch in favor of kalsa, and kancu seems quite untouchable even
questioning the TLI data.
kas * * 25 0 kas kalsa 25 25 1 19 0 0 chaoti
kan * * 19 19 kan kansa kas 79 60 16 23 13 19 with
kac * * 6 6 kac kancu kan 32 26 9 9 3 6 count
- * * 3 14 - karce kac 21 18 0 8 3 3 car
----- net benefit 14
Lojban usage
kalsa
6 kalsyfle
11 kalsygri
4 kalsykla
3 kalsyklo
2 kalsyri'a
3 kalsysu'a
kancu
26 cmekancu
2 kangau
1 kankre
2 kanri'a
karce
8 kacplu
(and Colin's proposal kackla)
Eaton data
karce
nu +muvdu +karce +bloti
kancu
na'e +cumki +kancu
na'e +kancu +cumki
na'e +se +kancu +gasnu
na'e +se +kancu +zbasu
kancu +claxu
kancu +zbasu
kancu +gasnu
kalsa has no TLI equivalent defined, either gismu or lujvo
karce 1 initial 2 medial 3 final in TLI dictionary
TLI's kancu is not quite the same as ours, which is a 2-place lujvo
(kancu gasnu) for them. Their kancu would be a conversion of ours:
terkancu. The other TLI dictionary lujvo based on their kancu is
equivalent to an initial position usage of our meaning.
8. JC found both of the following rather useless in lujvo, but all voted
yes. Here is the supporting data. The D&D terminology obviously skewed
things towards dakfu. But "sword" has usage even in nonmedieval contexts.
Presumed approved.
dak * * 25 6 dak dakfu 25 19 1 1 12 6 knife
- * * 8 15 dakli dak 20 12 1 4 2 8 sack
----- net benefit 12
Lojban usage
dakfu
2 baldakfyxai
2 cladakfyxai
19 famdakfu
2 krudakfyxai
2 tordakfyxai
2 xandakfyxai
dakli
1 dakcka
3 gapydakcifnu
1 sipydakli
Eaton data
dakfu
dakfu +co +darxi
TLI dictionary
dakfu 1 initial
dakli 2 initial
9. NSN questioned the justification for pemci, though others liked it.
There are no real losers, so I support the change a bit more strongly.
Presumed Approved.
pem * * 24 10 pem pemci 24 14 0 3 4 10 poem
pen * * 0 0 pen pe'i penmi pempe'i 62 26 10 7 2 36 meet
pes * * 0 0 pes pei pensi penpei 107 58 12 20 18 49 think
pex * * 1 1 pex pesxu pes 8 7 0 1 4 1 paste
pel * * 0 0 pel pelxu pex 13 13 2 4 1 0 yellow
pez * * 1 1 pez pezli pel 13 12 0 2 5 1 leaf
pef * * 0 0 pef pe'a pez 1 1 1 0 0 0 start
----- net benefit 14
Lojban usage
pemci
9 ninpemci
1 pemcypra
8 rampemcyzba
4 salpemci
Eaton data
pemci +srana
TLI dictionary has 1 usage of pemci, in initial position (for poet)
11. NSN questioned pilka's usage in Lojban. The rafsi in question is
pi'a. All Lojban usage of pilka has been in final position. I think
pilka is used for coverings that are an integral part of the item, while
gacri is intended for alienable coverings. Presumed approved.
* * pi'a 23 0 pil pi'a pilka pil 36 13 0 3 6 23 crust
* xra - 0 0 pir xra pixra pirpi'a 69 32 5 14 7 37 pictur
* - xai 0 0 xai xrani xra 49 26 0 11 8 23 injure
* * xa'i 0 0 xac xa'i xarci xacxai 65 27 8 8 7 38 weapon
xar * - 0 4 xar xanri xa'i 16 12 0 6 2 4 imagin
- * * 0 0 xa'a xatra xarxa'a 40 14 3 1 3 26 letter
----- net benefit 19
Lojban usage
2 jmepilka
2 rasyselpilka
Eaton data
te +pilka +catke
na'e +pilka +zbasu
dertu +se +pilka
jdari +pilka
jadni +pilka
palku +pilka
bongu +pilka
kerfa +pilka
bisli +pilka
taxfu +pilka
pilka +punji
pilka +litki
jirna +pilka
jirna +pilka
djacu +pagre +pilka
katna +kerfa +jibni +pilka
TLI dictionary 2 initial, 1 final
13. JC counterproposed leaving frinu with fin, NSN counterproposed
leaving frinu with fi'u. MS preferred Nick's. At this point given
relatively low usage for finti in non-final position and Cowan's initial
position proposals for frinu (thoughg I might use parbi or pagbu for
some of these), I am supporting Cowan's alternative, which does give
support for the cfipu usages.
* * fi'u 14 0 fi'u cfipu 14 12 1 4 0 2 confus
---
fin * fi'i 23 0 fin fi'i finti fit 34 11 0 4 0 23 invent
---
fit * - 0 15 fit friti fi'i 23 8 0 1 3 15 offer
--- cycle on fit
- * - 0 2 - frinu finfi'u 3 2 0 0 1 1 fracti
----- net benefit 20
Lojban usage
cfipu
1 cfipyri'abau
1 selcfipu (frequency understated - used much in DC conversation)
frinu - none
finti
1 ci'arfinti
1 fitci'a
4 fitfi'i
1 jbofinti
9 nunfinti
8 plafinti
5 selfinti
11 xamfinti
2 xamselfinti
Eaton data
cfipu
cfipu +cinmo
cfipu +pensi
frinu, finti - none
TLI dictionary does not support either frinu or cfipu as gismu or lujvo;
finti has 1 final position usage, with the concept of 'create' being
'cnino zbasu' and/or 'larcu zbasu', and author covered by "pemci zbasu",
"prosa zbasu", "tarti finti" = innovator???, or the well-known to TLIers
"start-giver" (this is the title JCB gives to himself re Loglan). All
of these would normally be subsumed under finti for Lojban.
15. JC, NSN, MS heavily debated this change vs. Alternate proposal A.
David Twery, who created most of the cinse lujvo that caused the
original to be favored over the alternate strongly preferred giving
cinmo the good rafsi, indicating that he had gone a bit overboard on
cinse compounds, most of which were not likely to see common use. I
agree, and Cowan also was willing to go along with a switch to alternate
proposal A. (They did favor giving cinse the better rafsi 'cin', and I
have done so.) However, examination of the supporting data for first
position of citno now leads me to support giving BOTH cit and ci'o to
citno, at the expense of cinta. The reduction in hyphenation more than
outweighs the minimal proposed usage for cinta. The supporting data is
lengthy, so I give Lojban usages only and summarize the rest.
The main problem with all this fiddling is that the result offers almost
no improvement in statistical coverage, unlike the original proposal.
But it may be that local data must overrule statistics here.
15. revised per alternate A and more analysis
* * * 11 11 cinla 14 10 1 6 0 4 thin
this one unchanged
cis * * 6 0 cis crisa 11 11 0 3 3 0 summer
cin * * 21 21 cin cinse cis 75 54 12 17 19 21 sexual
- * * 1 14 cinta cin 17 16 4 6 3 1 paint
* cni - 0 0 cni cinmo ci'o 156 77 12 41 17 79 emotion
* * ci'o 15 0 cit ci'o citno cit 56 41 1 28 4 15 young
* - ci'i 0 0 ci'i cinri cni 35 19 1 8 4 16 intere
* cki - 0 0 cki ciksi ci'i 43 12 0 4 2 31 explai
* - ci'u 0 0 ci'u ckilu cki 84 15 2 10 1 69 scale
tid * - 0 6 tid tcidu ci'u 17 11 0 1 3 6 read
sid * * 0 0 sid ti'i stidi tidti'i 43 14 0 8 0 29 sugges
= * * 0 0 dju sidju siddju 62 43 9 9 18 19 help
----- net benefit 2
Lojban usage
crisa none; Eaton 1 medial that would still need a hyphen, TLI dict: 3 initial
cinse
1 cinsycroxra
1 cispe'o
1 cispendo
1 cisri'aboi
1 cistai
1 cistanru
1 cistau
1 cistrikei
1 cisyjvo
10 cisyselpli
1 cornuncinse
1 degnuncinse
1 gircinse
1 kaznalcisyselci
1 kelcistri
1 malcistrikei
7 nalcinse
1 nalcispe'o
1 nalnuncinse
1 nalsukcisfra
5 nuncinse
1 nunciskei
1 nuncisyjikca
1 nungaxycinse
1 nunmo'ucinse
1 nunselbaicinse
1 pursukcisfra
1 samcinse
1 selcinse
1 sevycinse
1 sukcaicisfra
Eaton 3 initial 2 medial, 1 final; TLI dict: 2 initial
cinmo
3 camci'o
3 ci'ocro
5 ci'onri'a
8 ci'ordu'e
8 ci'orja'o
8 ci'orkansa
1 ci'orma'o
1 ci'orsinxa
1 depci'o
3 jivyci'o
5 kazyci'o
3 nuncinmo
6 selcinmo
4 sepci'o
8 smaci'o
2 to'erci'o
Eaton data 5 initial, 5 medial, 18 final; TLI dict: 7 init. 3 medial 4 final
citno
5 citkanba
2 citnanla
10 citnau
28 citni'u
6 citpendo
10 citrai
3 fetcitno
20 nimcitno
2 slacitcu'e
4 to'ecitno
2 to'ercitnau
9 to'ercitno
Eaton data 2 initial 1 final; TLI dict: 3 init.
cinta
3 cinfai
Eaton data 1 medial; TLI dict: 4 init.
cinla
8 caircinla
1 cinlycai
Eaton data 2 initial; TLI dict. 1 init.
19. MS liked gar for gapru, though he doesn't say why. 'gap' is the
more natural rafsi, and all others preferred the change. Presumed adopted.
20. JC was undecided on these, and MS shrugged. Supporting data for
danti and darsi provided. They are minimal since TLI had neither word.
danti covers a wide range of English words (arrow, bullet, ballistic,
gun, cannon, missile); darsi has a much more limited range: audacity,
dare, chutzpah, 'guts'. darno incidentally gets its more natural rafsi.
Cowan agreed. Presumed adopted.
dan * * 20 11 dan danti 20 9 0 3 3 11 projec
dar * * 0 0 dar da'o darno danda'o 49 43 7 22 7 6 far
- * * 1 7 - darsi dar 10 9 2 4 0 1 audaci
----- net benefit 3
Lojban usage
danti
2 seldanti
23 terdanti (which is meaningless given the new place structure)
darsi none
21. JC, NSN, MS all commented. There was no support for alternate B as
proposed; it was dropped. JC suggested something else instead using
makcu, but it really takes a GOOD usage to justify displacing the
enormously used cmalu from a CCV. NSN noted that the data for curnu is
erroneous, being based on his errors. From the standpoint of this
proposed change, I can see no difference in taking away those numbers -
curnu was merely a side beneficiary of the main thread of changes.
However, if people feel it appropriate, cu'u can be given over to cuntu
per change 76. which would then allow macnu to regain cnu as some have
asked for. I have changed the numbers for curnu to reflect Nick's
errors.
Nick was unhappy about bacru losing cru. I agree that it was close to
sacred. But the benefit to the much more useful cumki and barda and
curmi cannot be ignored (not to mention bringing cu'i the rafsi to track
with the cmavo). I suspect that most usages of bacru should be cusku
anyway.
The tradeoff between mamta and cmana is not as simple as it might seem.
Yeah, I'd like to see mamta keep ma'a. But it already has mam, while
cmana would otherwise have no cmavo. Thus the scoring tradeoff is the
13 for final position of mamta vs. 39 for cmana, nearly twice as bad as
the worst coverage other than this one.
* * cu'i 17 0 cum cu'i cumki cum 58 41 4 21 9 17 possib
---
- bra * 19 0 bra barda bad 131 112 28 61 14 19 big
---
- cru - 0 0 cru curmi curcu'i 86 25 1 14 4 61 let
----- with side benefit to
cur * - 0 (5)cur curnu cu'u 9 4 0 0 0 5 worm
---
* - ba'u 0 0 ba'u bacru cru 87 25 1 8 7 62 utter
bad * - 0 11 bad bandu ba'u 23 12 1 4 3 11 defend
- bra * 19 0 bra barda bad 131 112 28 61 14 19 big
* - ca'a 0 0 ca'a cabra bra 87 13 3 4 3 74 appara
* * ma'a 0 0 ma'a cmana ca'a 46 34 0 23 4 12 mounta
* * - 0 13 mam mamta mamma'a 52 39 11 17 3 13 mother
----- net benefit 12 (the 5 from curnu losing cu'u is counted on 76 below)
erroneous curnu data
2 dapcu'u
2 jgicu'u
1 seircu'u
1 selcu'u
10 sevycu'u
(this amounts to a net score of 11 in final position, which is reflected above.)
76. JC NSN MS all agreed that macnu had more need for a rafsi than
cutne. But the real tradeoff for such a rafsi assignment is vs. cuntu,
which covers a wide and useful semantic range including 'affairs', and
'business'. JC proposed 4 initial position lujvo for macnu. I also
discovered I was missing some TLI dictionary data, giving macnu at least
9 more score in initial position, more than enough to justify a rafsi.
Given the realization of problems with curnu data in 21. above, I favor
moving cu'u to cuntu, allowing cnu to return to macnu. The following
reflects that proposal.
cut * * 6 0 cut cutne 6 6 0 1 0 0 chest
cur * - 0 5 cur curnu cu'u 9 4 0 0 0 5 worm
- - cu'u 3 0 cu'u cuntu cut 19 16 4 6 3 3 affair
* * * 13 0 - cnu macnu cnu 13 1 13 0 0 0 manual
----- net benefit 17
Lojban usage
cuntu
17 cutyzu'e
cutne, macnu: none
Eaton data
cuntu
ka +no +se +cuntu
se +cuntu +cenba
se +cuntu +zbasu
se +cuntu +mukti
TLI dict:
cuntu 1 final
macnu 9 initial
cutne: none
22. NSN indicates that sim is sacred for him for simxu; MS agrees,
labelling 'six' as "icky". I am inclined to wonder if such a distaste
for 'x' is malglico, recognizing of course that Mark speaks languages
that use 'x'. I will go along based on the rather less malglico
argument that 'six' is lousy for hyphenation as compared with 'sim', and
simxu has 30 1st position usages. The decision then is which of stici,
since, or snime is denied a rafsi. Note that directional usages of
stici are likely to be reversible in lujvo (e.g northwest = westnorth).
The data which seems to favor snime and stici, follows, as well as the
presumed modification to the change based on retracting sim for simxu.
sic * * 10 9 sic stici 18 9 0 1 0 9 west
- * * 4 8 since sic 12 8 2 2 0 4 snake
* * * 0 0 si'e snime si'e 13 13 0 7 0 0 snow
* * si'u 14 0 sim si'u simxu sim 56 42 8 22 6 14 mutual
* * * 0 0 six sirxo six 10 10 0 7 0 0 Syrian
* * & 0 18 nid snidu nidsi'u 23 5 0 1 0 18 second
----- net penalty -7, ignoring snidu (metric/culture), net benefit 11
Lojban usage
snime
6 si'erbi'e
since - none
stici
6 berstici
15 snanystici
1 sticymla
Eaton data
since
banli +jubme +since
TLI dict.
stici - 2 final
snime - 2 initial
since - no lujvo
24. NSN took an interesting position on this one. He said NO, but
indicated that this was "not an irrevocable NO", being based on trying
for optimal hyphenation. MS agreed with Nick. The interesting thing is
that Nick was MUCH more vehement on the parallel case re fetsi, #150,
which follows, in spite of the fact that in that case fetsi was actually
going to retain a final position rafsi even with the change. Now I ask
why fetsi MUST have a monosyllable CVV when nakni, even if na'i is
retained, gets only a disyllable CV'V. Methinks a double standard is
being raised. JC points out in response that probably most lujvo with
fetsi or nakni in final position can reverse the order and put the
gender in initial position. It is not necessary that gender in Lojban
be a suffix, especially when the prefix is more likely to be
recognizeable in having 2 consonants. On the other hand, we KNOW that
monetary units will exist for nearly every cultural gismu in final
position, and this is NOT a particularly reversible lujvo (cent-ish
American-thing???) nalci, of course, deserves a rafsi - there is
certainly going to be use for 'wing' in both initial and final
positions. Nick's willingness to give on nakni which would give it no
final position rafsi at all, weakens his case on fetsi such that Cowan
and I vote equally strongly for the change as proposed.
* * na'i 18 0 na'i nalci 18 7 1 2 0 11 wing
* * - 0 9 nak nakni nakna'i 25 16 1 9 1 9 male
----- net benefit 9
150. NSN vehemently opposes
* * fei 0 0 fep fei fepni fepfe'i 40 10 0 3 0 31 cent
* * fe'i 0 0 fet fe'i fetsi fetfei 53 42 15 23 0 11 female
25. MS asked for supporting data on tcaci and tcadu. It was close
pre-Lojban usage, but not since. Presumed approved.
Lojban usage
tcaci
4 tcaju'o
tcadu
6 jbeta'uxa'u
1 lunryta'u
2 pijyta'u
4 ralta'u
3 ta'urkarni
8 ta'urlumpu'o
2 ta'urtrurkamni
3 ta'urxa'u
18 ta'utru
7 ta'uvro
3 ta'uvru
Eaton data
tcaci
tcaci +se +zukte
mutce +xlali +tcaci
tcadu
barda +tcadu
tcadu +ralju
bartu +tcadu +zdani
TLI dict.
tcadu 4 init 3 final
tcaci 5 init 1 final
27. NSN wants justification for sakci, enough to be moving sal from
salci. The main justification is that salci needs something it can use
in final position. I am actually more disturbed by having to weaken
slabu and lasna. The data shows that the usage of sakci comes mostly
from the compendium of DT's sexual terms, but that lasna appears to be
well-enough served by la'a. I leave it to you people to choose between
slabu and salci, with the edge to salci based on statistics if there is
no consensus otherwise.
sak * * 11 3 sak sakci 11 8 3 2 1 3 suck
sal * * 4 4 sal sakli sak 13 9 3 2 0 4 slide
- sla * 16 0 sla salci sal 46 30 1 17 7 16 celebr
* - sau 0 0 sau slabu sla 49 38 12 14 4 11 old
sas * - 0 9 sas srasu sau 38 29 2 12 9 9 grass
las * * 1 1 las slasi sas 13 12 2 6 0 1 plasti
- * * 0 0 la'a lasna lasla'a 36 17 1 7 4 19 fasten
----- net benefit 15
Lojban usage
sakci
2 gaxliksakci
2 sakcypinji
6 sakcyselylumci
salci
10 ctisalci
1 glesalcydei
3 jbosalci
1 nungumsaldansu
29 nunsalci
8 nunsaldansu
5 pixsalci
3 sa'irsalci
3 salcti
10 saldei
2 salgei
1 salja'o
4 salpemci
5 salsanga
slabu
2 mlecyslarai
4 ninsla
2 slacitcu'e
1 sladi'e
8 slagle
2 slamidju
1 slasutsabdja
2 zmaslarai
lasna
24 kikla'a
11 la'arja'i
1 nunla'a
1 nunlasna
3 sfalasna
1 skola'a
1 terla'a
1 terlasna
Eaton data
slabu
xlali +slabu
xamgu +slabu
slabu +stuzi
slabu +ckilu +merli
lasna, sakci, salci: none
TLI dict: lasna is neither gismu or lujvo; sakci exists only as the
limited semantics lujvo mouth-pull, salci is the lujvo
grand-respect-give, though there are three unrelated lujvo for
celebration: amuse-time, happy-time, giver-happy-time. Excellent
examples for the weakness of the TLI language and their lujvo-making.
slabu: 6 initial position
32. NSN and MS don't see why the following. The major beneficiaries
are the first three words, and nothing much is hurt by the change:
sraji is the only word that loses coverage and almost all of its uses
are initial position, where a CVC will serve well (though I note in the
data it sraji seems to have an affinity for being followed by words that
start with unvoiced consonants, so there may be a lot of hyphenation.)
There is a hidden benefit in that sumne did not get any rafsi, so panci
may come to carry an extra load for sensory lujvo, but people haven't
done much in this area yet (maybe in the coffeeshop???). Presumed
approved.
sat * * 8 0 sat sakta 8 8 1 4 0 0 sugar
- * sa'e 8 0 sa'e satre sat 19 11 0 4 1 8 stroke
---
pan * * 12 1 pan panci 12 11 1 4 1 1 odor
san * * 0 0 san spano pan 15 15 0 13 0 0 Spanis
---
sna 0 0 sna sance sansa'e 185 122 10 86 20 63 sound
* - sa'i 0 0 sa'i sanli sna 33 10 0 1 2 23 stand
* * sai 0 0 sai sanmi sa'i 44 24 1 6 10 20 meal
* sra - 0 0 sra sarji sai 53 34 3 10 14 19 suppor
raj - * 0 1 raj sraji sra 53 52 15 26 8 1 vertic
- * * 0 0 ra'i ranji rajra'i 36 27 4 8 7 9 contin
----- net benefit 24
Lojban data
sakta - none
satre
1 cmilysatre
2 jisysatre
1 riksurlysatre
1 tacysatre
1 vibytacysatre
panci/sumne
sraji
3 drasratse
1 sraca'a
141 srake'a
1 srake'aloi
10 sramudri
2 srasirdra
Eaton data
sakta - none
satre
satre +ctebi
denci +kansa +satre
panci
panci +pluka
xamgu +panci
sumne - none
sraji
sraji +clani
sraji +fenra
sraji +pluta
sraji +danmo +pluta
TLI dict.
sakta - gismu but not used
sumne/panci - the gismu is for panci with sumne a derived lujvo; 3 initial
satre - translated as darxi, or the lujvo prami-pencu
sraji - 4 initial position
33. NSN disputes my desire for tarmi to have a BAI that matches it
closely. Both tadji and tarmi have been sumti tcita dating back to the
TLI days when there were only a dozen BAIs; they are among the most
important and likely to be used. Nick himself missed the significance
of tarmi in badbarda/brabra kevna, if people will recall the rivers of
rock metaphor discussion last year. The statistics also show that tarti
and tarmi are among the most used gismu in lujvo, and I am concerned
that people will bring the wrong one to mind when they see the
cmavo/rafsi based on the inconsistency. Mark argued against this kind
of change elsewhere, but this was has been severe enough to affect me
and Nora, and I'm happy to find out that the data justifies the change
that I wanted to see.
35. ( and 78.) NSN and MS weren't convinced that moi would be used in
lujvo (and for that matter mei in #78, wherein JC also objected.
However, people have used pamoi and pamei in lujvo as well as
standalone; it is a frequent mistake by beginners - one with little
statistical supporting data, of course, since there is no way to make
lujvo with these words at all now. mei is easy to demonstrate the need
for: all concepts wherein singularity is significant will be -pavmei;
likewise pairs will be -relmei, and trios, quartets, quintets, dozens,
scores, grosses, abound in English and I presume other languages. They
all need a mei rafsi, or instead must be tanru with the number selbri
probably in final position, which usually gives a useless place
structure. "moi" is a little harder to come up with examples for, but
"first" and "last" -pavmoi and -rolmoi seem especially productive.
Orchestras have first and second violins, and Loglan/Lojban now has a
first-digger (pavmoikakpa). Ordinals are less used in natlangs than
cardinals, but when they are used, their semantics seems to stress the
order more than the number itself. I think the numerical selbri
standing apart, on the other hand, tend to stress the number, and not
its semantic usage.
37. NSN wanted the assignments changed, even at the expense of toldi,
to suit some apparently aesthetic consideration. I distrust aesthetics
as a motivation for anything in Lojban as being inherently culturally
biased, but this one needed changing anyway since people decided number
rafsi were sacred, and toldi can pick up the 'overkill' 'tod' from
stodi. So in this case I can oblige Nick's aesthetics.
* * * 0 0 non no non 7 7 2 3 2 0 0
unchanged
tol * * 0 0 tol to'e to'e to'e 45 45 4 35 6 0 polar
nor * * 0 0 nor no'e no'e no'e 11 11 4 7 0 0 neutra
tod * - 0 2 tod toldi to'i 6 4 0 0 0 2 butter
= * * 0 0 sto stodi todsto 12 9 1 3 1 3 consta
38. JC NSN MS all agreed that 2 rafsi for romge was excessive. I won't argue
in the face of massive rafsi minimalist semtiment, and have dropped ro'e.
rom * roi 0 0 rom roi roi rov 0 0 0 0 0 0 quanti
rog * - 0 0 rog romge romro'e 3 3 0 1 0 0 chrome
* * ro'i 0 0 rok ro'i rokci rokroi 59 33 1 13 8 29 rock
toc * toi 0 0 toc toi troci rocro'i 41 22 2 7 4 19 try
* * to'i 0 0 ton to'i torni tontoi 17 14 3 5 0 3 twist
tod * - 0 2 tod toldi to'i 6 4 0 0 0 2 butter
----- roc is freed and is not useful to any other word
----- rog is currently unassigned
----- net penalty 2
----- roi proposed by me as needing a non-hyphenating rafsi
39. JC NSN MS all agree that gocti and gotro do not need the CVV rafsi
(goi and go'o), and they are deleted from the proposal. The new gismu
were approved at LogFest. Giving bep to zbepi is overkill; it AND ze'i
are dropped in the revised proposal.
goc * * 0 goc gocti 1e-24
zep * * 0 zep zepti 1e-21
got * * 0 got gotro 1e24
zet * * 0 zet zetro 1e21
= * = 0 0 zbe zbepi zepzbeze'i 9 3 0 1 1 6 pedest
40. Correcting a historical note: Cowan thought that pante was a new
gismu, which it is not. It dates to the TLI era, though it has only 1
final position lujvo usage in the TLI dictionary. In any case, the
proposal is approved since not opposed.
42. JC was undecided on this one. Here is the data.
mat * * 16 3 mat mapti 16 13 0 6 1 3 fit
- * * 1 6 - matra mat 6 5 2 3 0 1 motor
----- net benefit 8
Lojban data
mapti
1 maptybi'o
3 maptypai
2 maptype'i
matra-none
Eaton data
mapti-none
matra
matra +trene
TLI dict.
matra - 1 init. 1 final
matci is reflected in the brain-dead lujvo "tarmi-mintu", as if things
must always be of identical shape to match each other.
43. NSN shrugged; the others said yes. Here's the data showing a
preponderence of people talking about the weather in final position,
especially in recent times; I'll assume it approved.
* * ti'a 15 0 tim ti'a tcima tim 35 20 4 5 6 15 weathe
* * - 0 14 tic tcica ticti'a 48 34 9 11 8 14 deceiv
----- net benefit 1
Lojban data
tcima
22 cictcima
15 viltcima
1 xlatcima
tcica
3 maltcica
Eaton data
tcima
nu +tcima +dikca
vlile +tcima
tcima +pruce
vlile +tcima +simsa
klina +tcima +cenba
tcica
tcica +se +simlu
tavla +tcica
jitfa +tavla +tcica
TLI dict.
tcima - 2 init. 1 medial, 1 final
tcica - 1 init.
47. MS wanted justification on this, but the others approved. There is
inherently not going to be a lot - given that rijno is rather limited
semantically, and hence is not likely to be too productive. I won't
argue too hard if people want to reverse this one.
rij * * 12 0 rij rijno 12 12 1 5 0 0 silver
- * * 0 0 ri'u rinju rijri'u 43 23 4 4 10 20 restra
----- net benefit 12
Lojban data
rijno
1 rijnysi'a
2 rijnyska
rinju
8 ri'usrutu'o
1 selri'u
Eaton data
rijno
rijno +simsa
rinju
rinju +cabra
cabra +rinju
zukte +rinju
tarti +rinju
stuzi +rinju
muvdu +rinju
rinju +javni
botsu +rinju +genxu
muvdu +sevzi +rinju
genxu +rinju +bloti +stuzi
cabra +rinju +botsu +stuzi
TLI dict.
rijno 2 initial (including rijno simsa again)
rinju 5 final
48. NSN saw no particular justification for gerku, except for
figurative ones. It does seem to have been bolstered by the iterations
of Open Window in the files, but there seems to be plenty of other
usages even if some are quite figurative. I consider the gleki article
in JL to be exactly what I DON'T consider to be sacred. All of these
statistics are based on such spewing out of numerous proposals, and many
of them have seen print in either JL or TLI publications. To me, a
rafsi is sacred if people know a particular lujvo based on it well
enough to use without analysis (in which case they won't notice until
they confuse someone that the meaning has been changed out from under
them), or something that we have used in teaching documents extensively
enough that people would notice the change (especially if we missed
revising it, a la kunbri - by my standards, kun would have been sacred
is this review based on that usage, even though the metaphor was lousy.
I have never seen any indication that people even READ that gleki game,
much less used it as a source of lujvo, or as intended, tried to do the
same for some other semantic field.)
ger * ge'u 12 0 ger ge'u gerku gek 32 20 0 12 0 12 dog
---
gen * * 0 0 gen ge'a gerna gerge'a 43 11 3 0 1 32 gramma
= * * 0 0 jge jgena genjge 18 12 0 9 3 6 knot
---
* gle - 0 0 let gle gletu letge'u 18 13 1 2 4 5 copula
gek - * 0 0 gek gei gleki glegei 83 51 5 25 13 32 happy
----- cycle back on gek
----- net benefit 12
Lojban data
3 gekcru
6 gekpre
8 gekyki'a
1 jvigerku
9 malgerku
1 nungerku
24 pangerku
1 simygerku
Eaton data - none
TLI dict: 2 initial (nakni/fetsi)
51. NSN thought taj sacred due to tajnau. JC answers that he would not
want the language bound by people's earliest Lojban writings - he would
not have used that lujvo if he were writing the same text today. MS
asked re justification for tamji, and I'll give non-final uses of traji
as well.
taj * * 10 2 taj tamji 10 8 0 2 2 2 thumb
- * * 0 0 rai traji tajrai 210 63 4 8 43 147 superl
----- net benefit 8
Lojban data
traji
10 tajnau
tamji
2 jaftamji
2 jaftamjycalku
Eaton data
tamji
tamji +clani
tamji +ganra
traji in TLI Loglan is only expressed as "zmadu roda"
52. NSN gives a lujvo for maze "lujypludi'u" that would lose a hyphen
by this proposal "lujlu'adi'u", and claims that pluta will be more used
in final position. The latter is true as the data below shows, but
affects decision-making only if you buy the argument that CVVs are poor
in final position, which we've already argued to no consensus - the data
goes both ways, and it probably depends on aesthetics as well as whether
you are writing or speaking the word. Since even those opponents of CVV
final use them in final position when they can use the expanded form as
well, I think this is intellectual rather than pragmatic aesthetics that
we are dealing with. In any event there is clearly significant use of
daplu, most of it final, and pluta does remain covered.
daplu
4 badydaplu
1 cmadaplu
2 xabdaplu
pluta
3 di'uplu
18 dijyplu
2 dzuplu
1 jacplu
8 kacplu
39 lujypludi'u
3 plufa'o
1 pluke'a
1 pluku'a
8 velplu
Eaton data
daplu
pagbu +daplu
xadba +daplu
pluta
pluta +cirko
sraji +pluta
flecu +pluta
tricu +pluta
danmo +pluta
cliva +bartu +drani +pluta
bartu +pluta +cliva
pluta +sisti +rinka
sraji +danmo +pluta
ciblu +fatne +pluta
jdari +rinka +jamfu +pluta
TLI dict.
daplu is a gismu, but not in any lujvo
pluta 2 initial, 6 final
55. MS asks whether creka needs a final form - the data shows only one
usage in that position. He and JC agree that cet should be freed, so
the proposal is so amended.
* * cei 4 0 cev cei cevni cev 58 54 16 28 2 4 god
---
* * ce'u 9 0 cem ce'u cecmu cem 22 13 2 5 0 9 commun
= cre - 0 0 cre certu cetce'u 61 19 2 9 2 42 expert
cek - * 0 1 cek creka cre 8 7 0 2 1 1 shirt
---
tek * ce'i 0 0 tek ce'i cteki cekcei 14 9 1 4 2 5 tax
* * - 0 2 teb ctebi tebce'i 9 7 1 1 1 2 lip
----- tek was previously unused
----- net benefit 10
59. NSN questioned final position usage of renvi in this change. All
lujvo usage thus far has been in final position, and JC notes that
"survivor" is a form that may suggest more usage (also victim, and outlast,
in certain contexts are renvi).
* * re'i 10 0 rev re'i renvi rev 23 13 2 5 1 10 surviv
* bre - 0 0 red bre bredi redre'i 35 29 3 9 11 6 ready
bes - be'a 0 0 bes be'a bersa bre 42 12 1 6 0 30 son
jer * - 0 3 jer jbera be'a 8 5 0 2 0 3 borrow
- * * 2 2 - jerna jer 6 4 0 0 0 2 earn
ben * * 0 0 ben besna bes 25 25 10 10 0 0 brain
= * * 0 0 jbe jbena benjbe 84 59 19 24 9 25 born
----- net benefit 7
Lojban data
2 ninrenvi
9 nunrenvi
4 selrenvi
renvi was not a TLI gismu or lujvo
64. JC was strongly for this one; NSN MS less so. Rice has some
obvious compounds in food discussions; probably more in cultures where
rice is more important (The Chinese may have 57 words for rice, instead
of snow ^) risna is useful in medicine, where the adjectivial form
cardiac may suggest some lujvo, but the 2 lujvo usages actually recorded
are from Eaton data, and are tied to the malglico "broken-hearted".
.ionaicai Presumend approved.
ris * * 9 0 ris rismi 9 9 1 0 4 0 rice
- * * 2 2 - risna ris 8 6 0 0 0 2 heart
----- net benefit 9
65. NSN MS agreed that this was an unjustified clunker. The supposed
beneficiaries were murse and sorgo which casual inspection showed had no
real usage. This change was an artifact of my early statistical methods
that should have been caught when I changed them in midstream, and had
no justification. Cowan argued for deletion of at least one of the
rafsi for sorcu on general principles, though, and I consented.
Revised:
* * = 0 0 soc sro sorcu socsroso'u 69 42 7 14 16 27 store
murse, muslo, solji, so'a, sorgu unchanged
----- net change 0
68. NSN is opposed, being suspicious of lujvo involving ladru. Why?
Have you never seen a dairy farm, eaten or drunk dairy products, etc.
Then there are specific products: goat-milk-cheese, etc. And this even
presumes that the concept "milky" is impermissible as a description of
appearance for a liquid. (I won't argue for "Milky Way"). Whether
these outweigh cladu's needs may be arguable, but the usages are there.
JC and I are strong yes, MS a weak no. I can't argue if Nick says ladmau is
sacred to him
lad * * 8 0 lad ladru 8 8 0 3 0 0 milk
- * * 0 0 lau cladu ladlau 41 31 2 18 4 10 loud
----- net benefit 8
Lojban data
cladu
2 cladakfyxai
2 ladbacru
2 ladbi'o
4 ladmau
1 ladyckasu
8 laucru
1 nalcladu
2 to'erlau
ladru - none
Eaton data
cladu
zanru +cladu
cladu +darlu
so'i +cladu +sance
farlu +ja +porpi +cladu
ladru
ladru +dinju
TLI dict.
cladu 3 init. 1 medial 2 fianl
ladru 1 init (milky)
72. MS thought this one made no sense, and on second look at the
statistics, I agreed. My standard was to divide the number of 1st
position usages by 4 or 5, and even this gives jundi more need than the
single usage of judri non-final.
judri 7 6 0 0 1 1 addres
jundi judju'i 42 20 1 12 0 22 attent
no change
81. JC, NSN, MS agreed that staku was more useful than taske in lujvo.
Neither had seen any use in lujvo, but taske had been used as a gismu
several times, unlike staku. Given Cowan's actual proposals for lujvo,
the proposal was withdrawn.
taske 4 4 0 0 0 0 thirst
staku tak 1 1 0 0 0 0 cerami
no change
84. NSN MS both oppose this change, MS less strongly. JC and I both
support it. (JC also wants 'ded' dropped as overkill, and I agree, and
have modified the proposal.) The tradeoff is between supporting denci,
or labelling a rafsi that probably should not have been used EXCEPT for
malglico reasons as sacred. Both opponents consider it vital to have a
rafsi for dinri, yet MS says that all the lujvo made with 'dei' are
djedi based and not dinri. If so, then there is no usage to justify a
rafsi for dinri; one cannot have it both ways. Both denci and degji
will be used in final position, both literally and in the same kinds of
shape-related figurative metaphors.
This one really seems to be the big vote on sacredness vs. efficiency.
So lets see if the data changes any votes or leads to a consensus.
The dinri problem has been solved - based on the ckamu, mleca precedent,
JC and I proposed changing the gismu to give it good rafsi, arguing that
as a newly created word it is not yet well-known, and the extreme demand
for good rafsi for it (though almost unjustified by actual examples, I
must admit) warrants overriding the sanctity of the gismu list. This
was approved at LogFest, and CF also agreed that changing the gismu was
acceptable in this case. (Sorry if this sounds like a railroad, but we
didn't have much time to check with people between proposal and vote -
Colin happened to send a message at the right time.)
I want people to go through the lujvo data below and determine which if
any should be switched to donri.
* * de'i 4 0 den de'i denci den 28 24 2 8 9 4 tooth
* * dei 0 0 deg dei degji degde'i 31 23 3 11 5 8 finger
= * = 0 0 dje djedi deddjedei 102 39 9 17 5 63 full d
dor * do'i dor do'i donri [dinri] 4 4 0 0 0 0 daytime
----- net benefit 4
Lojban data
denci
26 xantydenmai
1 dentro
degji
2 badjafyde'i
2 badjafyde'icalku
2 badyde'i
4 degjai
1 degnuncinse
2 pavde'i
djedi
11 bavlamdei
2 bendei
30 cabdei
13 dedmidju
1 djesni
1 djetei
1 glejbedei
1 glesalcydei
3 midydei
2 midydeisa'i
8 nacykefydei
1 pavnondei
9 prulamdei
11 purlamdei
4 roldei
10 saldei
1 zandei
Eaton data
denci
denci +bongu
denci +danlu
degji +denci
barda +denci +marji
denci +kansa +satre
jamfu +degji +denci
degji
degji +denci
degji +sinxa
jamfu +degji +denci
djedi
pa +djedi
pa +djedi
re +purci +cabna +djedi
djedi +krasi
gleki +djedi
jbena +djedi
morji +djedi
djedi +liste
djedi +xriso +re +moi +jbena
djedi +morji +cukta
ciste +djedi +nanca
TLI dict.
denci 3 init.
degji 5 init; also toe was separate gismu with no lujvo
djedi (their djedi is defined as our dinri/donri, though you'd never guess it
from the lujvo)
xriso djedi
midju djedi
lamji djedi
ro djedi
purci djedi
jbena djedi
djedi nicte (our djedi)
djedi sinxa
balvi lamji djedi
purci lamji djedi
djedi sinxa ciska
85. JC labelled this one "no winners, only losers". I asked him what
this meant. His philosophy is to try to give every gismu at least one
rafsi to some extent regardless of usage. Thus zbani loses. zarci
doesn't win by this philosophy since it already has a rafsi, even though
any number of types of stores and marketplaces will use zarci in final
position. JC now supports the proposal, but I list supporting data for
zasti and zarci, and people can decide whether they want to reverse zai
and za'i between these two.
* * za'i 3 0 zac za'i zarci zac 15 12 0 2 1 3 market
* * zai 0 0 zat zai zasti zatza'i 30 27 3 10 7 3 exist
* * - 0 2 - zbani zai 5 4 0 1 0 1 bay
----- net benefit 1
----- The statistics don't support this very strongly, but I can imagine
countless numbers of lujvo for types of markets/stores/malls, and few
for bay.
Lojban data
zarci - none
zasti
1 cabnalzasti
1 za'irbi'o
3 zatsta
zbani - none
Eaton data
zarci
ponse +pagbu +zarci
pagbu +ponse +zarci
pagbu +ponse +zarci +stuzi
zasti
zasti +sisti
so'i +zasti
TLI dict.
zarci - 2 init.
zasti, zbani: no lujvo for these gismu
86. MS thought virnu was more likely to be initial, apparently ignoring
the large numbers in final position (which are real - many of them date
from my own TLI dictionary work before Lojban), and that the vri could
be assigned somewhere more valuable. There aren't all that many words
that have a better excuse for CCV than one with 11 initial, 9 medial,
and 22 final in score, and besides - no other gismu COULD be assigned
vri (including vidru, even if we had wanted to - it would qualiy only
for vid, vir, vi'u, and dru). Presumed approved.
vir * * 3 0 vir vidru 3 3 0 1 0 0 virus
= * * 0 0 vri virnu virvri 48 26 2 9 9 22 brave
----- net benefit 3
87. NSN and MS both considered these poorly justified, with Mark
labelling it a lot of clunking in pursuit of a promise of cmavo
correspondence that is unachievable. I'm convinced. Proposal
withdrawn.
junta 2 2 0 2 0 0 weight
jutsi jut 7 6 0 0 1 1 specie
jursa jus 7 4 0 0 0 3 severe
junri jur 11 8 0 2 2 3 seriou
djuno junju'o 99 60 12 20 19 39 know
dunli dundu'i 50 34 0 10 17 16 equal
jduli duljdu 11 8 0 7 0 3 jelly
du dubdu'o 2 2 2 0 0 0 same i
du'u dum 0 0 0 0 0 0 bridi
jungo jug 16 16 1 11 0 0 Chines
unchanged
90.-92. NSN MS questioned whether these changes were justified. In
90., it is a toss-up, since neither is used in final position. But
snura clearly has much more overall use and can thus is more likely to
make use of it.
* * nu'a 2 0 nur nu'a snura nur 52 50 9 29 6 2 secure
* * - 0 1 nuz nuzba nuznu'a 24 23 0 13 3 1 news
----- net benefit 1
Lojban data
nuzba
4 nu'arki'a
8 nuzyxagji
snura
8 nurcau
12 nurgau
2 nurprecau
4 nurpu'i
2 nurstapa
Eaton data
nuzba
turni +nuzba +vasru
snura
nu +snura +zbasu
na'e +snura +krici
snura +krici
snura +rinka
snura +kurji
snura +taxfu
snura +zbasu +damba
cabra +zbasu +snura +ja +mipri
TLI dict.
nuzba 3 init.
snura 4 init.
91. In this case, not a lot of justification is needed, since the
changes are primarily due to freeing up 'overkill rafsi' JC argued and
convinced me that korcu does not need koc and it is dropped in this
iteration.
kob * ko'i 2 0 kob ko'i kobli 2 2 0 0 0 0 cabbag
* * = 0 0 sko skori skoko'i 31 16 3 10 1 15 cord
kor * * 0 0 kor koi korbi kobkoi 41 20 1 9 4 21 edge
= * * 0 0 kro korcu korkro 26 20 2 10 4 6 bent
----- net benefit 2
92. In this one, it seems clear that derxi, though thus far little
used, will be used primarily in final position - there are many kinds of
heaps, but few heapish things. For the aesthetes, a rafsi with no 'x'
may increase its use. Overkill justifies some change in dertu; the
change proposed supports derxi at the cost of a CVV on little used
desku. I argue on the basis of projected use, and not proven
productivity which is indecisive. JC argues based on overkill, that dex,
should be deleted, and the proposal is modified.
= dre * 2 0 dre derxi dex 6 4 0 0 0 2 heap
* - de'u 0 0 der de'u dertu derdre 64 41 11 16 7 23 dirt
* * - 0 1 des desku desde'u 9 8 1 0 1 1 shake
----- net benefit 1
Lojban usage
derxi
1 maurderxi
desku
1 cmade'u
TLI had lujvo for both of these, desku being a family of compounds of
slilu, and derxi being either marji-cmana or marji-galtu-cmana depending
on how big the pile was.
94. MS and NSN don't see much point. There is indeed a minimal justification, but
on later thought, given only a 1 point gain vs. the unnatural and more hyphenating rafsi for cunso, I'm
withdrawing this one.
kusru kus 10 9 2 2 0 1 cruel
ckunu ku'u 0 0 0 0 0 0 conife
cunso cuncu'o 70 65 20 28 12 5 random
cusku cussku 326 70 7 22 31 256 expres
unchanged
95. JC MS NSN - 2 shrugs and a NO, but JC became undecided at LogFest
review. Here is the data. Please revote. I won't fight either decision.
* * di'o 7 0 dig di'o dirgo dig 15 8 4 0 0 7 drop
* * - 0 7 - dinko di'o 7 3 0 1 2 4 nail
----- net benefit 0
Lojban data
dirgo
8 digligykamju
1 jacdirgo
5 klakydirgo
dinko
2 cardi'o
Eaton data
dirgo
cerni +dirgo
dinko-none
TLI dict.
dirgo - gismu but no lujvo
dinko 1 init, 1 mid, 2 final (a good lesson in TLI semantics:
cmalu dinko = tack/brad
cmalu dinko gasnu = to tack
dinko gasnu = to nail
barda dinko = spike)
Nora mentioned that 'staple' as a noun and verb would also use dinko.
97. JC noted an error; moklu was omitted from this list as picking up
'mok'. But I am having second thoughts - the choice is between the more
natural 'mok' and the rarely hyphenated and status quo 'mol'. 97 is
presumed approved. Please vote on 97a, with my leaning towards the
status quo.
mov * * 0 mov mo'i
mor * * 1 1 mor morko mok 10 9 0 7 1 1 Morocc
mon * * 0 0 mon mo'a morna mormo'a 129 110 4 101 1 19 patter
97a.
* * * 0 0 mok mo'u moklu molmo'u 23 24 1 12 2 4 mouth
98. JC NSN MS all supported jve for je, and opposed all others. Easy
to agree with.
Modified:
jo jov 0 0 0 0 0 0 tanru
ju juv 0 0 0 0 0 0 tanru
javni jva 73 45 5 18 18 28 rule
jei jez 0 0 0 0 0 0 truth
ja jav 11 11 0 0 11 0 tanru
* jve * 0 0 jev jve je jev 5 5 0 0 5 0 tanru
99. JC NSN MS all agree that extra rafsi for ce are overkill, but the
goal was to give a better rafsi to cecla, which has actually been used,
as opposed to the only theoretical usage of ce. Per JC suggestion then,
all but the CVC for ce has been removed from the proposal.
cel * * 0 0 cel ce'a cecla cecce'a 28 12 0 7 2 16 launch
cec * * 0 0 cec ce cel 0 0 0 0 0 0 set co
----- net benefit 0
100.-104. JC NSN MS all agreed that number rafsi were sacred, also
affecting 4, 7, and 0 elsewhere in the set of changes. All are
withdrawn. The other less-hyphenating changes ofr 101-103 were
acceptable to all, and hence adopted.
jom * * 0 0 jom jo'e joz 4 4 0 0 4 0 union
pus * * 0 0 pus pu'i puz 0 0 0 0 0 0 can an
tuf * * 0 0 tuf tu tuv 0 0 0 0 0 0 that y
bi biv 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
xa xav 1 1 0 1 0 0 6
105. NSN argued that cokcu doesn't need cok either, and this is more or
less agreeable. Proposal modified.
* * co'u 0 co'u co'u
= * = 0 0 cko cokcu cokckoco'u 4 3 0 1 0 1 soak
106.-134. JC NSN MS were generally opposed 'modulo exceptions'. We
went thru these individually, and generally deleted 1 or 2 rafsi unless
we really though there would be a lot of possible use.
106.
bus * bu'i 0 bus bu'i bu
approved
107.
col * * 0 col co
modified
108.
* * co'a 0 co'a co'a
modified
109.
go'i
rejected/withdrawn
110.
* * jo'u 0 jo'u jo'u
modified
111.
mob * * 0 mob mo'a
approved
112.
* * * 0 0 ce'o ce'o ce'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 sequen
status quo
113.
com * * 0 0 com co'e co'e co'e 2 2 0 2 0 0 unspec
approved
114.
* * doi 0 0 don doi do don 5 5 1 4 0 0 you
approved
115.
* * * 0 0 fo'i fo'i fo'i 0 0 0 0 0 0 it-8
status quo
116.
lem * * 0 0 lem le'e le'e 0 0 0 0 0 0 the st
modified - these will probably allways occur in 1st position
117.
lom * * 0 0 lom lo'e lo'e 0 0 0 0 0 0 the ty
modified - these will probably allways occur in 1st position
118.
* * * 0 0 nun nu nun 355 355 97 215 43 0 event
status quo
119.
* * * 0 0 nu'o nu'o nu'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 can bu
status quo
120.
* * * 0 0 sel se sel 880 880 136 460 284 0 2nd co
status quo
121.
sup * * 0 0 sup su'e su'e su'e 0 0 0 0 0 0 at mos
approved
122.
suz * * 0 0 suz su'o su'o su'o 2 2 2 0 0 0 at lea
approved
123.
* * * 0 0 ter te ter 176 176 26 120 30 0 3rd co
status quo
124.
* * * 0 0 vel ve vel 47 47 8 38 1 0 4th co
status quo
125.
* * * 0 0 ve'e ve'e ve'e 0 0 0 0 0 0 unspec
status quo
126.
* * * 0 0 von vo von 4 4 3 1 0 0 4
withdrawn - sacred
127.
* * * 0 0 vuz vu vuz 13 13 8 0 5 0 yonder
status quo
128.
* * * 0 0 xem xe xem 0 0 0 0 0 0 5th co
status quo
129.
* * * 0 0 za'o za'o za'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 superf
status quo
130.
* * * 0 0 zel ze zel 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
withdrawn - sacred
131.
* * * 0 0 ze'e ze'e ze'e 0 0 0 0 0 0 unspec
status quo
132.
zev * * 0 0 zev ze'o ze'o ze'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 recedi
approved
133.
zon * * 0 0 zon zo'a zo'a zo'a 0 0 0 0 0 0 tangen
approved
134.
zor * * 0 0 zor zo'i zo'i zo'i 0 0 0 0 0 0 approa
approved
135. JC NSN MS all said this was overkill. Agreed at Logfest to drop
both CVCs, retain foi because of some past usage.
* * * 0 0 fo'a fo'a fo'a 1 1 0 0 1 0 it-6
* flo * 0 0 flo foi foldi folfoi 41 12 4 3 0 29 field
136. JC NSN MS agreed that this was overkill, CVCs deleted.
* * * 0 0 fo'e fo'e fo'e 1 1 1 0 0 0 it-7
= * * 0 0 fro forca forfro 10 6 0 1 0 4 fork
137. JC NSN MS agreed that this was overkill - deletions made
* * * 0 0 vaz va vaz 4 4 0 4 0 0 there
= * = 0 0 vra vraga vagvrava'a 16 7 1 2 1 9 lever
138. JC felt diz was overkill, but accepted it as natural CVC from status quo.
* dzi * 0 0 diz dzi dizlo diz 14 14 0 7 0 0 low
* = * 0 0 zip zi'o dzipo zipdzizi'o 3 3 0 0 0 0 Antarc
145. NSN labelled this whole region for overkill, though John hadn't
labelled this one, which was moving an 'overkill' rafsi from a less-used
to a more-used gismu. But on mixre, the extra rafsi is the natural one,
and actually might improve hyphenation. No such benefit applies to
milxe, so it probably wouldn't be used. Thus, by NSN's general comment,
this one is withdrawn.
milxe mli 41 28 1 20 1 13 mild
mixre mixxre 25 19 2 4 8 6 mixtur
no changes
146. MS shrugged, but there really is a lot more non-final trixe than
rirxe, and the one place rix might have been used apparently fell victim
to aesthetics. Presumed approved.
rix * * 0 0 rix ti'e trixe ti'e 57 45 11 23 6 12 behind
- * * 0 0 ri'e rirxe rixri'e 40 28 8 13 0 12 river
Lojban data
trixe
7 cucti'e
10 jafti'e
1 nuntrixyga'abikla
2 ti'erbakfu
2 ti'erbongu
2 ti'erkansa
1 ti'ertu'e
8 trixystu
rirxe
22 cmari'e
8 ri'emla
2 ri'erkrajinto
Eaton data
trixe
nu +trixe +muvdu
jamfu +trixe
trixe +farna
trixe +catlu
trixe +claxu +klama
trixe +cliva +prenu
trixe +farna +klama
rirxe
rirxe +moklu
rirxe +ganxo
suksa +rirxe
rirxe +sisti
TLI dict.
trixe 9 init 3 mid, 3 final
rirxe 3 init 2 final
147. JC NSN thought sem was overkill, but ignored that te'o on terto is
even more likley overkill. Modified to only drop extras on semto, others
are status quo.
terto tet 77 77 68 9 0 0 1E12
stero te'o 19 3 0 1 0 16 sterad
= * = 0 0 sme semto semsmese'o 6 6 0 5 0 0 Semiti
148. MS was worried about robbing kelvo of 'kev'. The only use
non-final that I can think of is for temperature/thermometer. Given how
little known/understood kelvo is in the first place, I doubt that many
will even consider kelvo for lujvo-making.
149. JC NSN argued overkill on bolci. I agree to drop bo'i, but
believe that 'bol' deserves retention as natural status quo CVC, and is
at least as justified as 'dei' for djedi, especially since there is no
competition. JC agreed to the proposal as modified.
* - loi 0 0 lot loi bloti lotblolo'i 81 54 18 21 9 27 boat
* blo * 0 0 bol blo bolci bolboi 87 51 15 23 7 36 ball
* * boi 0 0 bot boi botpi botbo'i 13 12 2 3 0 1 bottle
* * lo'i 0 0 lol lo'i loldi lolloi 44 34 7 14 6 10 floor
154. MS argued for sacredness of gir for girzu. JC and NSN let this
slip by their overkill sensors, for some reason. Based on both
arguments, the entire proposal is withdrawn.
jgira jgi 26 16 2 9 2 10 pride
girzu girgri 197 76 27 17 25 121 group
158. JC NSN argue overkill. Proposal modified.
* * * 0 0 kre kerfa kre 67 36 4 20 6 31 hair
ref * * 0 0 ref ke'u krefu kefke'u 75 65 11 33 15 10 recur
----- ref is currently unassigned
159.-161. JC NSN MS all consider these a waste and overkill. I'm not
sure since each offers possible alternatives in hyphenation situations
in words that have much lujvo usage (well, except maybe petso, which hs
only theoretical usage). I won't argue too hard. Withdrawn
reluctantly.
lip * * 0 0 lip vli vlipa vli 54 37 4 21 6 17 powerf
* tso * 0 0 pet tso petso pet 77 77 68 9 0 0 1E15
tuc * * 0 0 tuc ctu ctuca ctu 53 26 3 10 2 31 teach
201.
= * * 0 0 bru burcu bucbru 17 11 1 9 0 6 brush
202.
= * * 0 0 cne cenba cebcne 256 125 4 20 95 131 vary
203.
* * * 0 0 con cno coi condi concnocoi 30 30 9 12 3 0 deep
not changed; semi-sacred - used in synopsis lujvo-making examples which
depend on having a word with all 3 possibilities - I think it worthwhile
to keep this one case of a word with all 3 rafsi, even if just for the
purpose of making examples.
204.
= * * 0 0 fle flecu fecfle 77 32 5 11 9 45 flow
205.
= * * 0 0 fli fliba fibfli 42 21 3 13 2 21 fail
206.
= * * 0 0 sfo sfofa fofsfo 8 5 0 1 0 3 sofa
207.
= * = 0 0 fru frumu fumfrufu'u 6 3 0 0 0 3 frown
208.
= * * 0 0 gra grake gakgra 20 2 0 1 0 18 gram
209.
* * * 0 0 gic gli glico gicgli 42 35 0 29 0 7 Englis
not changed; sacred
210.
* * * 0 0 jaf jma jamfu jafjma 53 44 8 22 8 9 foot
not changed; mildly sacred by heavy usage, if not by anyone's particular
memory - people regularly have chosen jaf over jma for some reason, even
when it forced hyphenation. The best example that overkill may be an
intellectual aesthetic.
2 badjafyde'i
2 badjafyde'icalku
2 jaftamji
2 jaftamjycalku
10 jafti'e
211
= * * 0 0 kle lei klesi lesklelei 63 24 1 14 3 39 class
changed but ambivalent on this; lei retained since it matches cmavo; may
want to keep 'les', too in order to have a good second instance of all 3
rafsi besides condi - one that will minimally hyphenate with condi
rafsi.
212
* * * 0 0 sev sne senva sevsne 27 19 2 12 0 8 dream
not changed; significant use of sev over sne
2 sevdrari'a
1 sevycinse
10 sevycu'u
213.
= * * 0 0 smo smoka soksmo 5 3 0 0 0 2 sock
214.
= * * 0 0 sfu sufti sufsfu 0 0 0 0 0 0 hoof
215.
* * * 0 0 val vla valsi valvla 154 73 19 34 12 81 word
not changed; significant use of val over vla
1 valcku
1 valdre
4 valgerna
4 valkei
2 valnunkei
6 valselkei
1 valste
216.
= * * 0 0 vre vreta vetvre 23 18 4 6 1 5 reclin
changed but ???; some use of vet over vre, which remains unused
1 vetspi
217.
* * = 0 0 vor vro vorme vorvrovo'e 38 11 0 0 4 27 door
218.
= * * 0 0 xru xruti xutxru 36 16 0 10 0 20 return
219.
= * * 0 0 zma mau zmadu zadzmamau 177 62 16 26 12 115 more
mau sacred, even zad has seen usage, but zma does predominate
4 xagzadri'a
1 geizma
2 kazmaksi
2 zmadji
1 zmagei
14 zmanei
1 zmanelci
9 zmapluka
2 zmari'a
1 zmasatci
2 zmaslarai
2 zmaxau
5 badmau
2 bitmau
3 clanymau
2 cnimau
1 dubjavmau
1 galmau
1 glemau
1 jbimau
4 ladmau
1 lirmau
1 maugle
1 maurderxi
6 maurzau
1 nalxagmau
3 pa'ermau
3 racmau
2 rinxagmau
1 selkemselgeimau
1 selkemymaula'e
1 selselgeimau
1 selvlimau
2 selyla'emau
3 tagmau
4 tecmau
2 tepri'amau
2 tervlimau
4 tilmau
2 tormau
63 vlimau
31 xagmau
3 xagmaubi'o
1 xagmaugau
220.
= * * 0 0 zmi zmiku zikzmi 16 12 4 7 0 4 automa
221.
= * * 0 0 zdi zdile zilzdi 44 32 3 16 6 12 amusin
changed, but ???; some usage of zil over zdi, but not a lot
6 zilsri
1 drizdi
2 kelzdi
1 nunselzdi
6 nunzdi
4 selzdi
2 selzdigei
10 zdifanza
222.
= * * 0 0 zmu zumri zumzmu 7 7 1 2 0 0 maize