Subject: Re: [lojban] jvoste

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 21:33:48 -0400

At 08:38 PM 10/15/02 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
>Are the lujvo in NORALUJV.txt drawn from usage, or were they thought up by the
>compiler of the list?

Three different answers:
The ones that could be autogenerated (se/te/ve lujvo) may or may not have 
usage.

The other ones that have definitions are the ones that Nick defined in 
1993-4 as part of writing the lujvo paper that forms the basis for CLL 
jvojva. These include some that were actually used as is, and some that he 
remade in accordance with the rules (and he wasn't all that self-consistent 
with the rules he was inventing).

Almost all the ones without definition either have been used, or have been 
proposed as an alternate in a comment on someone's usage in a text.

There is a number and some codes in the leftmost columns. The number is 
the frequency which the word appeared. If there are plus signs, then the 
word appeared in several forms, and this is probably the "optimal form" 
which may not be the form that was actually used; add the numbers to get a 
frequency.
Because my text cruncher did not eliminate quoted texts in LLG postings, 
many texts are counted multiple times because they were quoted for 
commenting purposes.

>Are the lujvo in NORALUJV.tx well-formed by the standard criteria of
>appositeness and seljvajvohood?

They are well formed by lujvo making rules. No one has performed any 
analysis of the undefined words. Nora found that Nick often did not 
optimally follow the rules he proposed, but she did not reach any 
conclusions on how the words SHOULD be defined (because she found that she 
learned the rules better as she went along, and after getting halfway 
through the list, looked at the beginning and found that much of what she 
had done was garbage - she never had the time to start over, and her 
annotations on what she had done were never typed in).

>What processes are in place for sifting usage for new lujvo?

None.

>Should we each be making the effort to document our lujvo usage?

That would be nice.

>Is anyone studying rafsi preferences?

No.

lojbab

-- 
lojbab [email-masked]
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