From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Thu Dec 05 18:59:41 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Dec 2002 02:59:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 9183 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2002 02:59:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Dec 2002 02:59:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Dec 2002 02:59:41 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18K8iK-0004t9-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:59:40 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18K8gJ-0004rH-00; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:57:35 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:57:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.113]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18K8fX-0004qe-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:56:47 -0800 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-59-212.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.59.212]) by lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 144B03D09D for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 03:56:14 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: cmegadri valfendi preti Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 02:58:24 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021205193155.00aca790@pop.east.cox.net> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-archive-position: 3107 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Nora to pier: > I realize > you are trying to enlarge the area of acceptable names, but (aside from the > fact that I support the existing definition as baseline) I think you are > doing the LISTENERS a disservice if you wish to have such things as > {muSTElaVIson} as a name. The name-maker can take his/her time and analyze > what he/she has built. The listener, however, may well be hearing it for > the first time (and therefore cannot just pull it out as a known > glob). And, the speech stream gives very little time for the listener to > analyze new things; if she/he takes too long, the rest of the > sentence is gone > > Think what the listener must go through: > "It ends in a consonant, so it has a name in there > somewhere. Aha! There's the 'la'. Yup, there isn't a consonant in front > of it. But, wait, the piece before it seems to have the accent in the > wrong place. Is the whole thing a name? Is it an error on the speakers > part? Or, after all this analysis have I just misremembered where the > stress was?" I opine that even the baseline rule is too difficult to apply on the fly (though your practical experience as a speaker may prove me wrong -- are you speaking from experience or from principle), and the same goes for the self-segmentation in general. (Self-segmentation is good because it is crucial to unambiguity, but the particular algorithm is not sufficient to be of help to real-time comprehension.) Hence the benefit to the namer (or namee) weighs more, and maximizing the available space for the different morphological classes outweighs the negative impact of a slight increase in complexity of an already complicated algorithm. --And.