This word is not in the shortest form, see pixydja.

Comment #2: Re: Not shortest form.

Lorenzo Von Matterhorn (Thu Jul 16 11:27:19 2015)

Wuzzy wrote: > This word is not in the shortest form, see pixydja. I know that. It was a conscious decision.

Comment #4: Re: Not shortest form. Curtis W Franks (Thu Jul 16 22:01:36 2015) selpahi wrote: > Wuzzy wrote: > > This word is not in the shortest form, see pixydja. > > I know that. It was a conscious decision. Out of curiosity, could you explain the motivation for this choice? Comment #5: Re: Not shortest form. Jonathan (Fri Jul 17 07:57:28 2015) As selpa'i said below (not directed to you, but explains the motivation): "Did you ever consider that someone might prefer the sound or form of a non-lowest scoring lujvo? Are you aware of the fact that a lot of people have started to use longer forms in conjunction with regular suffixes, because it requires both the speaker and the listener to learn fewer rafsi?"

Comment #3: Re: Not shortest form.

Lorenzo Von Matterhorn (Thu Jul 16 11:52:00 2015)

Wuzzy wrote: > This word is not in the shortest form, see pixydja. Seriously, why do you have to downvote and attack everything. Let people define alternate forms. Did you ever consider that someone might prefer the sound or form of a non-lowest scoring lujvo? Are you aware of the fact that a lot of people have started to use longer forms in conjunction with regular suffixes, because it requires both the speaker and the listener to learn fewer rafsi? No, you just downvote. Now pinxydja won't appear on vlasisku, great. Beginners won't find it there after seeing it used elsewhere.

Comment #6: Re: Not shortest form. Wuzzy (Fri Jul 17 08:06:46 2015) My reason is written in my latest comment here: https://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/184 I just repeat what I wrote below the line: -------- lagleki, you do not understand. People are free to choose any word form they like. Because, according to CLL, all forms a lujvo are equivalent by definition. So if I define ?tolyli'a?, I also automatically have defined ?to'e zei cliva? and ?tolycliva? as well. Therefore, it does not make much sense to include all those word forms, don't you think? The other word forms are simply implied. That the dictionary always should use the canonical form is simply to avoid redundancy. It would be bad if we had ?tolyli'a?, ?to'e zei cliva? AND ?tolycliva? floating around. It's simply a technical reason. That also why there is ?malgli? in the dictionary, although ?malglico? is a much more common (and 100% equally valid) form of this lujvo. In fact, this is stated every time you create a word: If it is a lujvo, make sure you're using the lowest scoring form of the lujvo. You're not going to get anywhere by using a different form, as the database is periodically swept for noncanonical form lujvo, and they are modified to the appropriate canonical form. (Or removed, and all related data pointed towards the canonical version, if it already exists.) I wonder if this database cleanup has ever been actually done before. It would be even better if Jbovlaste could check the lujvo score right from the beginning. -------- PS: People not being able to find alternate lujvo forms is actually a software problem that needs to be fixed in the software. The software really should be able to show all equivalent lujvo forms at once. That could all be done automatically. Having multiple entries for basically the same lujvo is bad. :-(