Received: from mail-oa0-f57.google.com ([209.85.219.57]:39503)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncBDPLXXOJVIKBBOF5QGDQKGQERJ746IQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1TpKt5-0001xx-RY; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 07:33:42 -0800
Received: by mail-oa0-f57.google.com with SMTP id i18sf6990976oag.12
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 07:33:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:x-received:received-spf
         :x-ct-class:x-ct-score:x-ct-refid:x-ct-spam:x-authority-analysis
         :x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject
         :references:in-reply-to:x-original-sender
         :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=xKQSE+O+YwPMn0020zvtW+QNI1r1nJK+he5pIN3aw+4=;
        b=SnPaeM3Za/pbyJSurrtCpx6JyzOOgI7G2rXzurViGkkWVfIDlfMKXZFcfqr77wbacT
         z9lZyitI5Yp2Jwuwo6O2SCk/2oGqA1xlDtXQIen3BxDv9upYYW6t8EkAkyeFCldrY8gS
         HjcvkAoVJCcn/SsgTKEhCQklnYppxM31OAeABRlhIzFrBbK8anofNGy1Y6Pe7N3PeyoZ
         YUIOJyHq4ujsEFZ5i8AzdNsa5A1cAKXZfugD/tAT+XMfT8cEAZTNgN803IbsHZWSoZLh
         HLnXWlWHkKuhZASXTZYjEdqf1ZLooUJNtShGPgaFnuG+xgr5nMQYCic2QmrIs4S7YD3F
         YaKw==
X-Received: by 10.49.94.143 with SMTP id dc15mr5646723qeb.32.1356881593249;
        Sun, 30 Dec 2012 07:33:13 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.49.0.176 with SMTP id 16ls4951697qef.41.gmail; Sun, 30 Dec
 2012 07:33:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.58.205.203 with SMTP id li11mr19163148vec.14.1356881592574;
        Sun, 30 Dec 2012 07:33:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.58.205.203 with SMTP id li11mr19163147vec.14.1356881592563;
        Sun, 30 Dec 2012 07:33:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eastrmfepo101.cox.net (eastrmfepo101.cox.net. [68.230.241.213])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id d17si11933380vdt.1.2012.12.30.07.33.12;
        Sun, 30 Dec 2012 07:33:12 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.213 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.213;
Received: from eastrmimpo109 ([68.230.241.222]) by eastrmfepo101.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP
          id <20121230153312.LPGD2891.eastrmfepo101.cox.net@eastrmimpo109>
          for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:33:12 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([98.169.148.216])
	by eastrmimpo109 with cox
	id hrZB1k00C4gNKFm01rZBnC; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:33:11 -0500
X-CT-Class: Clean
X-CT-Score: 0.00
X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020206.50E05EB7.00A2,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0
X-CT-Spam: 0
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=ac/jbGUt c=1 sm=1
 a=oMUrf2L0cPa+6Alu0knKiQ==:17 a=YsUzL_8ObRgA:10 a=IPHh7_3Ra0sA:10
 a=xmHE3fpoGJwA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=aB2t1-zLDNoA:10
 a=R5kUHvcmAAAA:8 a=BTnrtAoMh_7URVuHzNAA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10
 a=02Lsn6KIPOgQPTTa:21 a=azRJlMLKYahU_CkW:21 a=oMUrf2L0cPa+6Alu0knKiQ==:117
X-CM-Score: 0.00
Message-ID: <50E05EB8.5040104@lojban.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:33:12 -0500
From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] CLL 1.1/ CLL 2.0. What is your opinion in the current situation?
References: <20121227222129.GN7855@samsa.fritz.box> <20121227222753.GG18038@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <20121227231105.GO7855@samsa.fritz.box> <20121227232206.GI18038@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <20121227232732.GP7855@samsa.fritz.box> <20121227233537.GJ18038@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <20121227235946.GQ7855@samsa.fritz.box> <20121228000348.GL18038@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <CAMKwHj2WkyJHuG13rVE37=MY6mw5oFGouAvP1PL0RVFMhv9ruA@mail.gmail.com> <20121228185329.GO18038@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <20121228215107.GR7855@samsa.fritz.box> <50DEF2D2.6080309@lojban.org> <CAMKwHj17WQ=PUCwX20EmakosGZB+eTOvO7v-dXEKfG7LJk61KQ@mail.gmail.com> <50E04A0F.8080408@lojban.org> <80850efe-706f-4afe-8788-77fd6daa6b59@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <80850efe-706f-4afe-8788-77fd6daa6b59@googlegroups.com>
X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com:
 68.230.241.213 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for
 domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

la gleki wrote:
>     The other problem is that the writeups weren't in themselves usable as
>     sections for CLL.  They were selma'o and cmavo definitions, perhaps
>     suitable for an annotated dictionary that does not exist.  (To be
>     accurate, the predecessor for CLL was something called the "selma'o
>     catalogue, and the byfy writeups weren't all that bad as submissions to
>     such a catalog.  But the catalog gave way to CLL, remaining only as a
>     quasi-appendix "index" chapter at the end of the book.  The byfy chunks
>     were producing annotated selma'o catalog entries, but no one was
>     turning
>     those into CLL text).
>
>
> ^ ^
> That's very interesting. I'm sure CLL and the dictionary must approach
> each other.
 >
> vlasisku has short links to CLL chapters mentioning them (probably from
> the index you are talking about).

I have no idea what vlasisku is.

The printed CLL has an index that is almost 10% of the length of the 
book.  We put a lot of work into that index, so that people can find 
things easily.  It worked, too.  But the index is based on paper 
pagination and thus doesn't port to the web, and it was specific to 
Microsoft Word of the 1997 vintage (though later versions can read it), 
making it all but impossible to transfer to current efforts.

> However, I can't imagine a book being a dictionary at the same time.

???

Most dictionaries in history have been books.  Paper, binding, etc. 
There was no real alternative until the last couple of decades.

> And a dictionary being a reference grammar.

Most good reference dictionaries INCLUDE a reference grammar, generally 
in brief form in a chapter at the beginning or the end.  The Lojban 
reference grammar started as such a chapter intended for the dictionary, 
and then grew into a full book of its own.


http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/grammar has one on-line form of an 
English reference grammar, albeit a simplified one.

More comprehensive reference grammars typically run to several hundred 
pages and catalog the exceptions to the rules along with the rules 
themselves.

> I've never seen such dictionaries for any languages. Have you?

Yes.  I have dictionaries for around 20 languages from the word-making days.

I have also seen (and possess) reference grammars, mostly for English, 
though I have one reference grammar for Chinese recommended by Cowan, 
and a comparative reference grammar that discusses several dozen 
languages in more or less the same format of 10-50 page essays.

I did a study of lexicography in the 1990s to learn how to write a 
proper dictionary.

> But this is something that must be discussed further.

NOTHING "must" be discussed further.

Things must be DONE, not "discussed".  Discussion is the enemy of 
getting things done.

And proposing changes for discussion, as you seem to habitually do, 
makes paying attention to your proposals antithetical to getting things 
done.

Sorry for being undiplomatic.

lojbab

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.