the Great Rafsi Reallocation: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
No edit summary
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{se inspekte/en}}When the [[LLG|LLG]] created [[rafsi|rafsi]], they were assigned partly on the basis of how often the corresponding natural-language equivalents of the [[gismu|gismu]] were used in compounds. That is, [[gismu|gismu]] corresponding to concepts that are often used in compounds in natural languages, would get many rafsi, and gismu corresponding to concepts that almost always appear alone in natural languages, would get no rafsi.


Robin's Palm Writings Category: la nicte cadzu
However, it soon became apparent that Lojban usage did not follow natural language usage, so the rafsi assignments were not as useful as they were meant to be. So in 1993, the [[LLG|LLG]] generated a statistic of how often and in which positions the [[rafsi|rafsi]] appeared in [[lujvo|lujvo]], and on that basis proceeded to assign new rafsi to the gismu, in order to make as many lujvo as possible as much shorter and less crunchy as possible.
==Discussion==


Navigation: [[Robin's Palm Writings: la nicte cadzu|la nicte cadzu Index]] [[Robin's Palm Writings|Robin's Palm Writings Top-Level Index]]
*[[User:Bob LeChevalier|Bob LeChevalier]]:
 
**The above isn't quite correct. The initial set of rafsi was generated the same way as the 1993 generation. However, since Lojban did not have any lujvo yet, we used the TLI Loglan set of lujvo including a vast set of proposed lujvo. TLI lujvo making was not nearly as semantically rule-based as Lojban lujvo-making has turned out, so many of those proposals would not be acceptable in their Lojban equivalents. In any event, by 1993 we had some actual usage of the various gismu/rafsi in lujvo and it seemed appropriate to do a revision prior to baselining the rafsi list (the gismu list had been baselined in 1992). I did a complete reanalysis using the same rules I had used originally. The community overrode this analysis, saying that some chunk of rafsi were so well known that they were "sacred" and unchangeable merely because of a possible statistical advantage. The rafsi actually changed ended up being about half of the proposed set of changes.
ni'o vo pi ci mo'o nu ka'orze'a
*[[User:tijlan|la tijlan]]:
 
**Unfortunately, the reallocation did not result impartially for the set of cultural gismu (a set which I consider inappropriate anyway, though). '''bemro''' got three rafsi, while '''friko''' got two, despite the fact that '''bemro''' is already a subdivision of a continent and thus relatively more specific than '''friko''', which encompasses a whole continent and thus likely has more potentials than '''bemro''' as a lujvo element for sub-concepts of the generic "African". I also find it incovenient that cosmetics-/fashion-related words like '''cinta''' and '''skaci''' have no short rafsi from which to create various derivates useful even in everyday conversations especially among women.
.i ba za bo la ko'a co'a ganse .i lo ka cortu cu so'a si'e lo se ganse be ko'a .i ku'i ko'a ji'a tirna lo vokse .i ku'i ze'u bo ko'a na jimpe lo se smuni be lo selsku po lo voksa .i ba bo ko'a jimpe lo du'u le so'o voksa cu jai casnu da poi se cmene zo susan .i se ki'u bo ko'a ganse lo selsku noi se krasi lo menli be ko'a .i ko'a te cusku lu lo voksa cu jai cansu do .i do se cmene zo .susan. li'u .i ba za bo ko'a menli cusku lu .ua ma rinka lo nu mi na morji li'u ju'e lu do pu se xrani fi so'e lo tcetcetcetce jursa .i mi stidi lo nu do za'u re'u tolsanji binxo li'u ju'e lu .ui sai xu mi kakne li'u ju'u lu go'i li'u .i se mu'i bo sy gasnu
*[[middle and modern rafsi|A comparison between the old and the new rafsi list]].
 
*This has the side effect that Lojban written prior to 1993 looks funny to people who are reading it now. For example, '''xisli'icutci''' (rollerblade, '''xislu linji cutci''') has survived in the lujvo list for many years, even though by today's rafsi assignments it means '''xriso linji cutci'''! The Lojban spoken between [[Lojban timeline|year 1987]] and [[Lojban timeline|year 1993]] is sometimes poetically referred to [[Middle Lojban|mijyjbo]] (''Middle Lojban''), in reference to a poem by [[Michael Helsem|Michael Helsem]] (see [[Lojbanic mythology]]).
ni'o ba zu bo la .susan. cikna binxo mu'i lo nu da pencu le ctebi lo lenku je cilmo bukpu .i sy viska la .devid. noi pencu .i sy pencu le tance le djacu gi'e cusku lu ma cabyku'e li'u .i vy milxe cisma gi'e cusku lu do pu te preti lo simsa su'o vo roi ku .i ku'i mi gleki lo nu do na cusku lu mi mo li'u .i lo djedi be li ci cu cabyku'e lo nu do so'a roi sipna li'u .i sy gasnu co sinxa lo nu jimpe gi'e cusku lu mi nitcu lo djacu li'u .i vy dunda lo kabri gi'e cusku lu ko pinxe lo tcetce cmalu .i le do betfu cu mutce se xrani .i sy tinbe gi'e xruti lo kabri .i sy djica lo nu te preti so'i da .i ku'i sy zi tolsanji binxo .i vy prami satre le mebri be sy gi'e cusku lu sy ka'orze'a li'u la .djen. .i ri cusku lu go'i .ui sai to'i dy denpa gi'e catlu le xance be vy  toi .i xu djuno li'u ju'e lu na go'i li'u ju'e lu je'e .deivid. li'u
 
ni'o ba zu bo la .susan. cisma se ra'a lo nu la .deivid. nergau le ka'orze'a kumfa .i sy gleki gi'e milxe spaji vau lo nu vy di'i vitke sy .i vy cusku lu doi .susan. mi bevri lo titla grute se va'u do li'u .i ku'i sy cusku lu .ui sai .u'u mi ca'o na kakne lo nu citka .i lo si'o mi citka cu ca ca'a rigni mi .i ku'i mi gleki lo se dunda li'u ju'e lu za'a do jdika lo junta .ui nai li'u .i sy jarco lo ka fanza ce'u kei gi'e cusku lu le jmive cu cusku lo se du'u le canti be mi cu na kakne lo nu pilno lo cidja kei .i ku'i lo nejni cu sarcu lo nu cikre .i se ki'u bo le jmive cu pilno lo grasu to .oi mi no roi ponse du'e ri toi .e lo sluji .oi sai .i ji'a le jmive cu minde lo nu mi na pilno lo ka cortu rivbi xukmi li'u ju'e lu .uu sai .a'o do ba zi kakne lo nu citka li'u ju'e lu ki'e .deivid. li'u
 
ni'o vy co'a cliva .i ku'i sy cusku lu ma tcini le pulji jatna li'u .i vy cisma gi'e cusku lu ju'o le jatna ba sidju ny cy ca lo nu mi'o nitcu .i le rokci remsmimi'i pu na jai gau xrani le dinju .i ku'i le jatna cu jimpe lo du'u le rokci cu kakne lo nu daspo li'u .i sy ji'a cisma gi'e cusku lu mutce xamgu li'u .i sy ba lo mentu be li ji'i mu poi lamji balvi lo nu vy cliva cu sipna

Latest revision as of 06:16, 11 April 2015

When the LLG created rafsi, they were assigned partly on the basis of how often the corresponding natural-language equivalents of the gismu were used in compounds. That is, gismu corresponding to concepts that are often used in compounds in natural languages, would get many rafsi, and gismu corresponding to concepts that almost always appear alone in natural languages, would get no rafsi.

However, it soon became apparent that Lojban usage did not follow natural language usage, so the rafsi assignments were not as useful as they were meant to be. So in 1993, the LLG generated a statistic of how often and in which positions the rafsi appeared in lujvo, and on that basis proceeded to assign new rafsi to the gismu, in order to make as many lujvo as possible as much shorter and less crunchy as possible.

Discussion

  • Bob LeChevalier:
    • The above isn't quite correct. The initial set of rafsi was generated the same way as the 1993 generation. However, since Lojban did not have any lujvo yet, we used the TLI Loglan set of lujvo including a vast set of proposed lujvo. TLI lujvo making was not nearly as semantically rule-based as Lojban lujvo-making has turned out, so many of those proposals would not be acceptable in their Lojban equivalents. In any event, by 1993 we had some actual usage of the various gismu/rafsi in lujvo and it seemed appropriate to do a revision prior to baselining the rafsi list (the gismu list had been baselined in 1992). I did a complete reanalysis using the same rules I had used originally. The community overrode this analysis, saying that some chunk of rafsi were so well known that they were "sacred" and unchangeable merely because of a possible statistical advantage. The rafsi actually changed ended up being about half of the proposed set of changes.
  • la tijlan:
    • Unfortunately, the reallocation did not result impartially for the set of cultural gismu (a set which I consider inappropriate anyway, though). bemro got three rafsi, while friko got two, despite the fact that bemro is already a subdivision of a continent and thus relatively more specific than friko, which encompasses a whole continent and thus likely has more potentials than bemro as a lujvo element for sub-concepts of the generic "African". I also find it incovenient that cosmetics-/fashion-related words like cinta and skaci have no short rafsi from which to create various derivates useful even in everyday conversations especially among women.
  • A comparison between the old and the new rafsi list.
  • This has the side effect that Lojban written prior to 1993 looks funny to people who are reading it now. For example, xisli'icutci (rollerblade, xislu linji cutci) has survived in the lujvo list for many years, even though by today's rafsi assignments it means xriso linji cutci! The Lojban spoken between year 1987 and year 1993 is sometimes poetically referred to mijyjbo (Middle Lojban), in reference to a poem by Michael Helsem (see Lojbanic mythology).