Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Delivery-date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 07:35:36 -0700
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:33:28 +0200 (CEST)
From: Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org>
To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Subject: [jbovlaste] Incorrect use of subsenses, how to remove (and permanent fix?)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0608131625001.25334@hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Content-Length: 1657
Lines: 42

I just reprimanded Einar Faanes for using subsenses of Norwegian natlang 
words in cases where a differentiation is not reasonable. I seem to 
remember that correcting this sort of mistake is as simple as editing the 
natlang word, and removing the contents of the "in the sense of" field.

It turns out that it's not so simple. This is the message he got:

    This word is already defined, but you are trying to add a
    definition with a default meaning (i.e. you put nothing in the "in
    the sense of" box).

    The problem here is that the existence of a default meaning implies
    that no differentiation from that meaning is reasonable. Since another
    definition exists, this is patently false.

    Please go look at other definitions for this word, and see if any
    of them work for you. If not, you're just going to have to go back
    and narrow the sense of the word.

    We were unable to add the new word.

If I understand it correctly, "editing" a natlang word doesn't really
edit the word object per se, but rather creates a new one, updating
all the pointers to it in the process.

Right now, I would like to have the subsenses in the following natlang 
words removed:
http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/natlang/no/bar
http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/natlang/no/kro
http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/natlang/no/pub
http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/natlang/no/klientell

Also, I would like some way of fixing this kind of error without having 
database access.

-- 
Arnt Richard Johansen                                http://arj.nvg.org/
Confusion among -ate ~ -ant pairs is even more prominate, since both
are legitimant suffixes. --Adam Albright