MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <54BCFC70.2010805@selpahi.de>
References: <0CD5A578A47549238B8B046A01B8846C@gmail.com>
 <CAP=UV6rFA6e3bF=mDFBoDSKqo_kxMsh5xWuVbpSe94VhL2Li0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <54BCF147.1080803@lojban.org> <54BCFC70.2010805@selpahi.de>
From: guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 01:52:26 +0900
Message-ID: <CAO1AUJPR_A0MtGUTjdTV0mYcFNY6sY12Ln0z3RPTYygdZEOodA@mail.gmail.com>
To: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Spam_score: 0.7
X-Spam_score_int: 7
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software,
 running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", 
 has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
 message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details.
 Content preview:  2015-01-19 21:45 GMT+09:00 selpahi : > In any case, it is
 unreasonable and damaging (regardless of whether or that > practice adheres
 to LLG standards) to keep these (and other outdated) > definitions in
 jbovlaste
 under the user marked "officialdata" with 10000 > votes. Practically nobody
 uses the old definitions of {zabna} and {mabla}, > and new people are mislead
 time and again when they search for their > definitions, because it still
 displays the old one. This must be changed, > and not in ten years after
 everything else has been done, but right now > (years ago, really). > > It
 is time to update our agenda and be able to do the urgent things > immediately,
 especially when they are so easy to do. But we will get to that > when we
 get to discussing the baseline. > [...] 
 Content analysis details:   (0.7 points, 5.0 required)
 pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL    RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org
 [listed in gmail.com.rhsbl.ahbl.org.	IN] [A]
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3      RBL: Good reputation (+3)
 [209.85.218.41 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
 See
 http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
 for more information. [URIs: selpahi.de]
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
 (gusni.kantu[at]gmail.com)
 -1.9 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 [score: 0.0000]
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
 domain
 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
 not necessarily valid
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL      Mailspike good senders
Subject: Re: [Llg-members] nu ningau so'u se jbovlaste / updating a few
 jbovlaste entries
X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: <llg-members.lojban.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/options/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/>
List-Post: <mailto:llg-members@lojban.org>
List-Help: <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org

2015-01-19 21:45 GMT+09:00 selpahi <selpahi@selpahi.de>:

> In any case, it is unreasonable and damaging (regardless of whether or that
> practice adheres to LLG standards) to keep these (and other outdated)
> definitions in jbovlaste under the user marked "officialdata" with 10000
> votes. Practically nobody uses the old definitions of {zabna} and {mabla},
> and new people are mislead time and again when they search for their
> definitions, because it still displays the old one. This must be changed,
> and not in ten years after everything else has been done, but right now
> (years ago, really).
>
> It is time to update our agenda and be able to do the urgent things
> immediately, especially when they are so easy to do. But we will get to that
> when we get to discussing the baseline.
>

I agree completely.

Besides, it may be too much advanced thought, but I think all official
gismu and cmavo should be defined in Lojban.

A language consists of only sequences of symbols regulated by a
grammar, but the universe expressed by a language depends on
definitions of words. As long as the words of a language are defined
by another language, the universe is restricted to that can be
expressed by the language used for the definitions. I think the
universe expressed by Lojban should be liberated from the other
languages.

Looking up words in la jbovlaste, Lojban definitions were already
given to most of official cmavo by la xorxes, as well as to some of
gismu by several people. Maybe we need a systematic group work to
complete the official Lojban definitions.

Also, I suggest all experimental cmavo/gismu should be accompanied by
Lojban definitions. I wish such restriction were included in the
functions of adding words to la jbovlaste. (Such a function may bring
also a secondary effect that anyone who is not a skillful Lojban
speaker cannot add cmavo/gismu that are sometimes annoying to most of
Lojban speakers.)

mi'e la guskant mu'o

_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members