Return-path: X-Spam-Personal-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Delivery-date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:01:47 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LjH85-000819-Ds; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:01:39 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:01:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LjH7V-00080r-EJ for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:01:01 -0700 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LjH7V-00080i-1l for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:01:01 -0700 Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:01:01 -0700 From: Robin Lee Powell To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: [jvs-watch] Per www-data : Bad NatLangWords Report Message-ID: <20090316180100.GX13005@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: jbovlaste@lojban.org References: <20090316081536.GX7405@nvg.org> <23f4e3390903160159g71733791u8d30bc82b5e7bd3b@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <23f4e3390903160159g71733791u8d30bc82b5e7bd3b@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 1518 Lines: 44 On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 07:29:58PM +1030, David Gowers wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 09:15:29PM +0000, www-data wrote: > >> > >> > >> The following words in the given languages have a null definition *AND* a not null definition.  Please fix. > > > > Please explain. What's a null definition? > > If you look at > > http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/natlang/en/solid > http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/natlang/en/product > > it appears to refer to a word that is used in no definitions - which > basically amounts to a nonexistent definition. No. What it means is that if you look at http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/natlang/en/solid , there is a version with a sense specifier ("solid", in the sense of "not liquid or gaseous") and there is one without (just "solid"). This makes little sense, because if no qualifier was needed (that is, if there's only one sense of "solid" in English) there shouldn't be any others. The fact that one of them isn't used in any valsi definitions is entirely beside the point. IIRC we decided that sometimes the default sense was too hard to pin down, and having a default along with a bunch of specialist senses was OK. -Robin -- They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons." And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something other than the default outcome?" -- http://shorl.com/tydruhedufogre http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/