From lojbab@lojban.org Tue Sep 25 10:24:24 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 25 Sep 2001 17:23:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 26141 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2001 17:12:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 25 Sep 2001 17:12:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-3.cais.net) (205.252.14.73) by mta2 with SMTP; 25 Sep 2001 17:13:24 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (143.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.143]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f8PHDM381897 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 13:13:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010925130358.00daa570@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 13:10:13 -0400 To: lojban Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: ro prenu na ku daplu In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 04:11 PM 9/25/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote: > >>> "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" 09/24/01 01:37am >#At 12:34 AM 9/24/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote: >#>Nick: >#> > One thing: you're insisting on {zei} because you want to sidestep the >#> > potential ambiguity of tanru, or because you don't want to look up >the Evil >#> > that is rafsi? >#> >#>I don't want to use tanru. I don't want to look up short rafsi. And I >#>avoid 5-letter rafsi so as to make it easier for others to look up the >#>constituent parts. I also approve of lujvo glue as a matter of principle. ># >#This sounds a bit strange, coming from someone who is arguing that we don't >#have enough allowance for Zipfean shortening. > >The fact that I dislike the rafsi system, which happens to be Lojban's >sole zipfean mechanism, is not incompatible with my thinking there >should be other better zipfean mechanisms. > >At this stage I think that type 4 fuhivla and string-abbreviating >experimental >cmavo are our best hope, but if I could rewrite history I would have made >all gismu CCV and used any C as lujvo glue (CCV-C-CCV). You may want to check out Rex May's loglang Ceqli, http://www.geocities.com/ceqli/ since he came to a similar conclusion, though I don't know where he went with it (he discusses it on alt.lang.artificial). Of course that sort of lujvo is anti-Zipfean, since it is longer than the metaphor that it supposedly compresses. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org