Return-path: X-Spam-Personal-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb (2006-10-05) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb (2006-10-05) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.1.7-deb Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Delivery-date: Sat, 12 May 2007 20:56:08 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hn5Bb-000626-I0; Sat, 12 May 2007 20:55:58 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Sat, 12 May 2007 20:55:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hn5BM-00061x-UJ for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Sat, 12 May 2007 20:55:41 -0700 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Hn5BL-00061i-IQ; Sat, 12 May 2007 20:55:40 -0700 Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 20:55:39 -0700 To: jbovlaste@lojban.org, lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: [lojban] jbovlaste natlang word voting question Message-ID: <20070513035539.GZ16151@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: jbovlaste@lojban.org, lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20070513031708.GX16151@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070513031708.GX16151@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: Robin Lee Powell X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-list: jbovlaste Content-Length: 1274 Lines: 31 On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 08:17:08PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > A jbovlaste question; if you don't care about how jbovlaste works or > is laid out, move along. > > I'm pondering the nature of natlang word voting; look at > http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/natlang/en/computer%20program for > example (if anyone can suggest a better example, where "better" is > defined here as "more contention", please speak up). > > I'm wondering if natlang word voting buys us anything. I mean, a > Lojban word has only one meaning, so it's not Ok for the second > place of sampli to mean both "computer program" and "astronaut". > :) But it *is* OK for "computer program" to map to both sampli and > samtci, as occurs on that page. I don't see a lot of value to > preferring one over the other; maybe if they're both above water > (a positive vote value) we should have both in the dictionary? > > What do you all think? Someone pointed out that you couldn't acutally derive that second place of sampli from its components, so I've corrected that. Try http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/natlang/en/ball instead for an example of multiple natlang usages; if the dictionary said something like "ball - first place of bolci, second place of selboi", would that be a bad thing? -Robin