|
Wuzzy wrote:
> selpahi wrote:
> > Wuzzy wrote:
> > > Jbovlaste only should have the lowest scoring form of a lujvo.
> Jbovlaste
> > > tells you that every time you want to create a new word. The lowest
> > > scoring form for this is not “cfilyfacki” but “cfifa'i”.
> >
> > So you also reject ci'omle because citmle has a better score?
> Yes. I reject it being in the dictionary.
> However, this does NOT mean that I reject “ci'omle” _in general_.
>
> > What is
> > the benefit of such a policy?
> To avoid reduncancy in jbovlaste. Consider the opposite case: You
include
> every possible word form of a given lujvo. But everything is treated in
> jbovlaste as if it were a completely different word. This would mean
> you’d repeat the definition over and over again. And if you want to
edit
> something, you would have to edit the other definitions as well. It is
> very easy to become inconsistent then. To make life easier, the
dictionary
> only includes the lowest-scoring form. It is assumed the user can infer
> all the other valid forms of the lujvo. The definition applies to all
> lujvo forms equally.
Okay, this is a valid point. Under the current rules, every two lujvo that
contain rafsi of the same words in the same order are considered the same
word, so it would be easier to have them organized more automatically.
However, jbovlaste has no such feature, and it also doesn't seem to happen
very much that multiple forms are added.
> > If lots of people prefer the sound of
> > ci'omle, why should the score matter?
> The score only matters for dictionary purposes. In actual speech, the
> score does not matter.
Sure, but apparently the scoring algorithm can sometimes prefer words that
humans don't prefer. When that happens, maybe we (the speakers) should
have a bigger say than an artificial algorithm (whose initial purpose it
was to make the shortest and most pleasing forms get the best scores).
This sort of thing doesn't happen so often that adding an alternative form
causes a lot of extra effort. I can think of ci'omle and je'umlu,
which some people prefer because they get rid of the "tml" cluster, or
because they don't like cit in the word for "cute".
> What about this compromise?: If you want a certain word form to be
> included, mention it in the notes instead of creating an entire new
entry.
> Here’s an example: malgli (mentions “malglico”). There is no
entry
> for “malglico” because it is not needed.
That would be an option.
> > "The CLL says X so anything else is completely wrong and evil"
> and
> > I find this attitude very destructive.
> I understand. This is a big topic and perhaps I will explain myself on
the
> mailing list in detail.
Okay. It's not a very fun topic, though. :)
|