Received: from mail-io0-f191.google.com ([209.85.223.191]:32939) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1aLlhL-0007jc-Pu for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 21:52:55 -0800 Received: by mail-io0-f191.google.com with SMTP id j13sf2703328ioe.0 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 21:52:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:message-id:subject:mime-version:content-type :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=vwthej/WRtjiQXBCrL1HErJ164Noosw9W+KP10UGmME=; b=n+zdJtu60CIq949U8Y3Kgu+wp94eQQGCTPdMo5U1uPzc7osVXUl2o06hNvHQ8OupNC mlDdRiNxO0wdM8XdWpLaeWuMl5U8JWUBV/f8FbuS2DycLXKgGoCgWeb+NGEo2DRrCmE3 37O7hYYbO5rp40oCfGUJ395QrffJ3bNnL0q3vXkrfa14V83Nhbv8ITtJJ3bB9zuIBRJj m8KD5cHT+imZiGpbnHS3zJySRywXBDbRIFL25jvK0xbILkT8PxvidtoPsBM3kKWoIDcx tIKlmV16kdG4TMdgSPWeZtpISTRpwuY/bdwmAu+M7pEjzQ1DeoVT+Rc4C/QD7hajawML QmLg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:subject:mime-version:content-type :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=vwthej/WRtjiQXBCrL1HErJ164Noosw9W+KP10UGmME=; b=Ut626uHBVgJC/IIDvOngmxOO38XsACM74DokphyTDzCrbsaQAj950o5aysTta5YTup 9qKt/5HjD9DYaEPFXJUUDl55G9dPXFzs8KHvY5KGKBYYtygal0O+tnuyBQzvY6Nlk4uP PahVSFaWnjouq8/KWnUD9dKvZjyA3I34Hlrh0AMnGvpjMoYXt6AdWRT1OZjQxgY3nTDA vq4X7vKtJO19WsXPQ+QvQnzXpQuoKpqLEtke1GSrY7BcCthY1nmi3FE0WclMUTaLmfCM UAPNQ7k4t0fkn/cS6aTyn8El6W8xowHM3QMwurDp3ylcPyBzxfVQtG0c4Ok+RzXwtNON Cxag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:subject:mime-version :content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=vwthej/WRtjiQXBCrL1HErJ164Noosw9W+KP10UGmME=; b=H6qb0DIBHoad0NTj7n83/QQpHUyPCXqHLKpLUAVuWNnOBNrDWZu+2OsUWknE1Bk350 4l93wcP6koxR4eUzYaBjzYHUPs/RRhZDPROdB0YR6xGR6+v+O4Ug+DZorOcs39TebhnR 1h4hD1X0GH4Pr5JlilE20UrRvPkCPkhF89NYNKOKUjYEZDgnFDJqhf1U87St1UXNCwC2 5Ow0KAEJvlNBmzxnsOcXkCWtOlYtHvTSyiRrYHVDIC7IYrw6ZyJgz9/DnBNiwvozheeR SlYgcpXo508LFA6cQ1DIayhrBzXuYYZ1ziZR3RUVJo7ibIN9Wqwf5iJ2sffc4VCYCZj+ b8dA== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOT80d9erzWf53PZQCbFjFW/IDsXzSKFkJQARlwGnGdkmnJ4ofpgzU7jxKL6TAURHQ== X-Received: by 10.140.28.136 with SMTP id 8mr68019qgz.15.1453269165960; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 21:52:45 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.140.95.3 with SMTP id h3ls3395005qge.77.gmail; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 21:52:45 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.93.65 with SMTP id c59mr75085qge.3.1453269165361; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 21:52:45 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 21:52:44 -0800 (PST) From: Andrew To: lojban Message-Id: <6f919681-f16c-4888-aa5a-30518a717c12@googlegroups.com> Subject: [lojban] {cukta} as a case study for why the dictionary needs clearer, more detailed entries MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_2356_2120809323.1453269164970" X-Original-Sender: summerfallsaway@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.8 X-Spam_score_int: -17 X-Spam_bar: - ------=_Part_2356_2120809323.1453269164970 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2357_1978696863.1453269164970" ------=_Part_2357_1978696863.1453269164970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I've only been studying Lojban for about 8 months; however, for a while now, I have felt that the dictionary needs some work. (There are multiple dictionaries, but I believe all or most of them get their data from the same source: la jbovlaste.) Specifically, I think the dictionary entries need more usage notes, and some explanation of the semantics of the sumti for each selbri, and examples to help illustrate all the important points. My recent discussions on IRC about the definition of {cukta} provide a good example of why: Tonight and last night, I asked about what sorts of things might fill the x2 (and even the x1) of the selbri {cukta}. I thought was I asking fairly simple clarifying questions, but both times, I apparently ignited rather lengthy discussions. This was not merely so much philosophical navel-gazing either. Tonight's discussions did seem to eventually reach some consensus on the place structure for {cukta}... This is what we came up with: - x1 of {cukta} refers to a particular *copy* of a book -- rather than the more abstract sense of "book" as in a literary work, a pattern of words and/or images. Sumti which could fill the x1 would include {ti} when pointing to a physical copy, or a file path for an ebook copy. - x2 could be anything from a quote of the entire contents of the book; a quote of a shorter selection of the book; random keywords that happen to appear *in* the book; a word or phrase which describes some of the book's contents; a list of topics, or a single main topic; a table of contents; or even just a more general description of the book (e.g., {ti cukta lo clani} = "this is a long book"). - the rest of the sumti were less controversial: - x3 = the author of the book - x4 = the intended audience (such as "young adults" for YA fiction) - x5 is a little odd, maybe. You could say {lo pelji} for a print book, but an ebook would be something like "disk" or "electrons" or something... If the above explanation of {cukta} is accurate, then the given definition in la jbovlaste and the other dictionaries is *woefully* inadequate. If the above explanation is wrong, then the lojban community needs clarification even more badly. The difference between fuzzy, abstract concepts like "truth" versus "fact", may always give rise to occasional semantic debate. But I should think the meaning of words like "book" should not be so difficult to pin down: the entry for {cukta} needs to be updated. More broadly, I think updating the lojban dictionaries in general should be considered an urgently important task. We all want to grow the community, and that will be much easier when the dictionaries do a better job of offering consensus and clarity around word meanings. I also think the dictionary edits ought to be done by people who are expert enough in Lojban to be fairly authoritative. I realize my proposal means a lot of work, and that the number of "authoritative experts" is still fairly low, but I think it's important to make sure the dictionaries are actually accurate. I've run into a lot of confusion and frustration over dictionary definitions, so I'm trying my best to help make things better: I myself could proofread the (English) definitions, to offer feedback to make sure the entries are as clear as possible. What do you think? ki'e mu'o ~Andrew / la cemjig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. ------=_Part_2357_1978696863.1453269164970 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I've only been studying Lojban for about 8 months; how= ever, for a while now, I have felt that the dictionary needs some work. (Th= ere are multiple dictionaries, but I believe all or most of them get their = data from the same source: la jbovlaste.)

Specifically, I think the = dictionary entries need more usage notes, and some explanation of the seman= tics of the sumti for each selbri, and examples to help illustrate all the = important points. My recent discussions on IRC about the definition of {cuk= ta} provide a good example of why: Tonight and last night, I asked about wh= at sorts of things might fill the x2 (and even the x1) of the selbri {cukta= }. I thought was I asking fairly simple clarifying questions, but both time= s, I apparently ignited rather lengthy discussions. This was not merely so = much philosophical navel-gazing either. Tonight's discussions did seem = to eventually reach some consensus on the place structure for {cukta}... Th= is is what we came up with:
  • x1 of {cukta} refers to a particular= copy of a book -- rather than the more abstract sense of &qu= ot;book" as in a literary work, a pattern of words and/or images. Sumt= i which could fill the x1 would include {ti} when pointing to a physical co= py, or a file path for an ebook copy.
  • x2 could be anything from a q= uote of the entire contents of the book; a quote of a shorter selection of = the book; random keywords that happen to appear in the book; a word = or phrase which describes some of the book's contents; a list of topics= , or a single main topic; a table of contents; or even just a more general = description of the book (e.g., {ti cukta lo clani} =3D "this is a long= book").
  • the rest of the sumti were less controversial:
  • x3 =3D the author of the book
  • x4 =3D the intended audience (s= uch as "young adults" for YA fiction)
  • x5 is a little odd,= maybe. You could say {lo pelji} for a print book, but an ebook would be so= mething like "disk" or "electrons" or something...
  • =

If the above explanation of {cukta} is accurate, then the give= n definition in la jbovlaste and the other dictionaries is woefully = inadequate. If the above explanation is wrong, then the lojban community ne= eds clarification even more badly.


The difference between = fuzzy, abstract concepts like "truth" versus "fact", ma= y always give rise to occasional semantic debate. But I should think the me= aning of words like "book" should not be so difficult to pin down= : the entry for {cukta} needs to be updated.


More broadly,= I think updating the lojban dictionaries in general should be considered a= n urgently important task. We all want to grow the community, and that will= be much easier when the dictionaries do a better job of offering consensus= and clarity around word meanings.


I also think the dictio= nary edits ought to be done by people who are expert enough in Lojban to be= fairly authoritative. I realize my proposal means a lot of work, and that = the number of "authoritative experts" is still fairly low, but I = think it's important to make sure the dictionaries are actually accurat= e. I've run into a lot of confusion and frustration over dictionary def= initions, so I'm trying my best to help make things better: I myself co= uld proofread the (English) definitions, to offer feedback to make sure the= entries are as clear as possible.


What do you think?

<= p>

ki'e mu'o

~Andrew / la cemjig

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http= s://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
------=_Part_2357_1978696863.1453269164970-- ------=_Part_2356_2120809323.1453269164970--