Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 06:29:23 -0800
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:28:15 -0700
From: ".alyn.post." <alyn.post@lodockikumazvati.org>
To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: defining "debug"
Message-ID: <20101217142814.GC32499@alice.local>
Mail-Followup-To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
References: <20101217133000.GA32499@alice.local> <AANLkTinZzGWyActPsETd=-PMGR+xRZhx_xZPDAy6QNJK@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinZzGWyActPsETd=-PMGR+xRZhx_xZPDAy6QNJK@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Content-Length: 2545
Lines: 78

Luke,

Thank you for giving me *some* definition for cfisisku.  That's now
my working definition for cfisisku.  I'm not 100% happy with it.
Why is proof reader any more basic than debugger?  It would seem
that following your own advice "proof reader" would need to be
{tidycfisisku}.

Is there a hint between these two at a more fundamental definition?

If we have a reading fault finder and a computer program fault finder,
what is a fault finder?

What about "critic" (with, as usual, conotation ignored), as a working
definition for cfisisku?  Alas, a "critic" in English can also be
anyone expressing reasoned judgement, for which finding fault is a
subset of.

Are we on to something here, though?  Can you improve that?

-Alan

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 09:05:23AM -0500, Luke Bergen wrote:
>    I would highly recommend adding the {sam} rafsi. If I saw cfisisku the
>    first thing that would come to mind is "proof reader" ;)
> 
>    On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:30 AM, .alyn.post.
>    <[1]alyn.post@lodockikumazvati.org> wrote:
> 
>      I'm working on a lujvo for "debug," as in "locate and correct errors
>      in computer program code."
> 
>      I've got:
> 
>      cfila : c1 (property - ka) is a flaw/fault/defect in c2 causing c3.
>      sisku : s1 seeks/searches/looks for property s2 among set s3.
> 
>      which creates the lujvo cfisisku, which one could define:
> 
>      s1 debugs computer program c2 for flaw/property c1==s2 causing c3
> 
>      To me, the sumti places map extremely well, I'm very pleased to see
>      it that way. I'm concerned about defining the x2 places as needing
>      to be a computer program, as that doesn't follow at all from the
>      gismu that make up this word.
> 
>      I could add skami as part of the Lujvo:
> 
>      samcfisisku
> 
>      But now I have two words to define, and I'm not sure what gloss
>      words I would use to define cfisisku. Is it wise to add the sam
>      rafsi?
> 
>      I'd also like to add a Lojban definition for this lujvo. I'm
>      uncertain as to how to do this, and would appreciate help improving
>      what I've got:
> 
>      ko'a sisku lo ka cfila goi ko'e lo samselpla goi ko'i
> 
>      I've missed specifying the c3 place, and I haven't linked any of the
>      xN places to xN places in the gismu definitions. Will you point me
>      in the right direction?
> 
>      -Alan
>      --
>      .i ko djuno fi le do sevzi
> 
> References
> 
>    Visible links
>    1. mailto:alyn.post@lodockikumazvati.org

-- 
.i ko djuno fi le do sevzi