rafsi

["John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@CRL.COM>]

Oops! (Night thoughts)  Mark,l 's rafsi proposal does fail the
internal resolution test in its present form: CAr+trAC for
example is not distinguishable from CArt+rAc.  I ball-park teh
number of problematic CCCs at above 500, so pretty likely to
have actual cases.  To resolve this, mark,l will need either
glue at the CVC-four-letter rafsi joins or seriously restrict the
legitimate CVCs or, perhaps, go to only four-letter rafsi, with
joins as needed.  The first and last further diminish the
advantage of his system over the present long-rafsi system, the
second makes the chances of complete coverage smaller.  The
last version is, in fact, just the long rafsi format with an
occasional dropped schwa.  Glueing all CVC-fourletter joins
is not strcitly necessary, of course, but specifying which ones
don't need the y would make for an even more complicated set
of rules added to the present  complexity.
pc>|83