Received: from mail-wi0-f183.google.com ([209.85.212.183]:33422) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1Yy1Rl-0007vf-Mk; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:18:29 -0700 Received: by wivr20 with SMTP id r20sf6539593wiv.0; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:18:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=ws63lDELn4BhHMUaY+PLeVPsh6rJsm5pJqb8Ab5mUo4=; b=YYa9JRKyDQZX9WCRonBbluLf5DSqnIXMaSur1DxtYT5PXWNSTIGVUZJpFQEjVYp2nq aJPc1lAmicHHg35MtwhhK/dbDj1S6ZqAVCpnMylZFDOSGCi2HUyN/uWb5xxaWbTAze9u wakz65i6cHAH2HNFKyg8inVgU25bsOI43eRht4BjSpFRUCqSUL6gQsQASH0xAZBb/VXe aQnt+AlqUFnmyD1ItZL4jnC3dpPdJ7LcrUoRptTKJ0ZJIcLbTTT+ZipCcoE8VvHjJe3C XB+4iDxf3SJPqpvocmBlzdnHxvvAuS/Q9pBYQVLJiDJUA5PVwWBv3m7b8JCt0hF7Ed12 li1A== X-Received: by 10.152.87.168 with SMTP id az8mr63968lab.31.1432833494299; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:18:14 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.36.65 with SMTP id o1ls237425laj.108.gmail; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:18:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.203.233 with SMTP id kt9mr3520016lac.7.1432833493842; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:18:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x229.google.com (mail-wi0-x229.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q10si168589wiz.0.2015.05.28.10.18.13 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 28 May 2015 10:18:13 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::229 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::229; Received: by mail-wi0-x229.google.com with SMTP id mc15so130226485wic.1 for ; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:18:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.181.13.198 with SMTP id fa6mr63832054wid.41.1432833493727; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:18:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.221.167 with HTTP; Thu, 28 May 2015 10:17:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5567405B.7040602@gmail.com> References: <55647BCD.8060008@gmail.com> <55661E01.8030707@gmail.com> <5567405B.7040602@gmail.com> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 20:17:53 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] Lojban word definitions style guidelines To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043d64896a7d420517278baf X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::229 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --f46d043d64896a7d420517278baf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2015-05-28 19:20 GMT+03:00 Ilmen : > > > On 28/05/2015 16:56, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > > > Also etymology somewhat contradicts my proposal: >> https://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/131 where we have etymology >> only in Lojban whereas for the other languages they can be generated by >> third party software like those that produce printable dictionaries. >> >> Uh, what are they generating from, then? >> > As I understood in this proposal for every language there is a separate > entry with etymology. All such entries can be autogenerated from Lojban > one. > > > I'm not certain whether Naours suggest there should be one etymology field > for each definition. > > I can imagine a case where two experimental cmavo or gismu would have two > distinct and incompatible definitions, along with two unrelated > source/etymology > yes, issue 131 says that etymology is bound to meaning, not word. > , although that seems to be a pretty uncommon case. > > On the other hand, copying manually the etymology field to each definition > would be a boring task, if not a chore. > > Another option would be to have definitions grouped by proposed meaning > (each of those meaning groups would probably be restricted to one > definition entry per language), and have one etymology field attached to > each proposed meaning group, so as to avoid redundancy. > > mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "BPFK" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. --f46d043d64896a7d420517278baf Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2015-05-28 19:20 GMT+03:00 Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>= ;:
=20 =20 =20


On 28/05/2015 16:56, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:

Also etymology somewhat contradicts my proposal:=C2=A0https://github.com/lo= jban/jbovlaste/issues/131=C2=A0where we have etymology only in Lojban whereas for the other languages they can be generated by third party software like those that produce printable dictionaries.

Uh, what are they generating from, then?

As I understood in this proposal for every language there is a separate entry with etymology. All such entries can be autogenerated from Lojban one.

I'm not certain whether Naours suggest there should be one etymolog= y field for each definition.

I can imagine a case where two experimental cmavo or gismu would have two distinct and incompatible definitions, along with two unrelated source/etymology

yes, i= ssue 131 says that etymology is bound to meaning, not word.
=C2= =A0
, although that seems to be a pretty uncommon case.

On the other hand, copying manually the etymology field to each definition would be a boring task, if not a chore.

Another option would be to have definitions grouped by proposed meaning (each of those meaning groups would probably be restricted to one definition entry per language), and have one etymology field attached to each proposed meaning group, so as to avoid redundancy.

mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list= +unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at ht= tp://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--f46d043d64896a7d420517278baf--