Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 20:37:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Andrew <summerfallsaway@gmail.com>
To: lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <98c49151-ad46-447d-84c3-3c121c4210ef@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJHgu=9mnx8WoBbSvsmJSYij5S8nk3pWMSF0xbWz4Z12NSZ1jA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6f919681-f16c-4888-aa5a-30518a717c12@googlegroups.com>
 <569F85BF.8030909@gmx.de> <CAJHgu=_a1eGoxT9u2=wiwDDHuXrniRiZK8=7kFxCe_6k1pTgQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8805e2d3-4389-460c-9e5b-b0d5194da1c2@googlegroups.com> <BY1PR01MB1386B4A811FC27122F37FA5AEBC40@BY1PR01MB1386.prod.exchangelabs.com>
 <CAJHgu=-C6Fd9V01f=k_+gnkJyp0_CA08U3Xx0HwvC5YVPWMhCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <BY1PR01MB13862A9971AD0B056BD845EFEBC50@BY1PR01MB1386.prod.exchangelabs.com>
 <56A51A50.7030306@gmx.de> <c5007cbc-706e-445e-95e7-8135fd17a370@googlegroups.com>
 <CAJHgu=9mnx8WoBbSvsmJSYij5S8nk3pWMSF0xbWz4Z12NSZ1jA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [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_5349_872731164.1453869478342"
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.8
X-Spam_score_int: -17
X-Spam_bar: -

------=_Part_5349_872731164.1453869478342
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_5350_2060068839.1453869478342"

------=_Part_5350_2060068839.1453869478342
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

mungojelly/selckiku:

> you seem to be assuming that not putting words in the dictionary will 
> mean they don't exist.
>
 
*What?* To be clear, I'm certainly not trying to stop people from making up 
new words, nor am I trying to slow down the creation of words, if that's 
what you're getting at. New words are made up all the time -- we then add 
them to the dictionary to clarify their meaning and to help others to learn 
and use those new words. I don't know what to say about supposed valsi that 
exist but which do not appear in the dictionary... except that if they are 
really part of the language, then those undefined valsi *should be defined 
too.* How else would new people learn the full language?

Most of our discussion so far has been about whether it would be practical 
to actually try to update all entries in the dictionary -- or else, how 
best to implement such a plan. From this, I assumed that we at least 
generally agree that the dictionary could do a better job explaining the 
full meaning of the brivla. If we agree on that much, *then we should do a 
better job* explaining the brivla. If this were truly an impractical task, 
then lojban is doomed to obscurity forever. However, I would argue that 
updating the dictionary is perfectly doable if we can just agree that it's 
necessary, and agree on how to do it.

The task of actually updating the complete dictionary would be more 
feasible if we first made sure that all *new* words fill out our template 
for a more detailed brivla definition. Then we only have to worry about 
updating the entries that have already made it into the dictionary: a 
large, but finite number.

Am I being clear? Does this makes sense?

~Andrew / cemjig


On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 8:05:28 PM UTC-8, la stela selckiku wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Andrew <summerf...@gmail.com 
> <javascript:>> wrote: 
> > 
> > Probably the first step, then, should be to enforce the definition 
> template 
> > for all new words. Currently, I believe, the web form for entering new 
> lujvo 
> > into la jbovlaste encourages notes about the meanings of each sumti, but 
> it 
> > doesn't require it. If all new words suddenly had to fill in this more 
> > complete template, it would assure that we have a finite number of words 
> to 
> > review. 
>
> na'i 
>
> You seem to be assuming that not putting words in the dictionary will 
> mean they don't exist. Lojban is a living language with lots of 
> unrecorded words of every sort. Minimizing rather than maximizing the 
> words included in a dictionary would make that dictionary far less 
> useful to someone trying to understand the real language. 
>
> <3, 
> mungojelly/selckiku 
>

-- 
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_5350_2060068839.1453869478342
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">mungojelly/selckiku:<br><blockquote style=3D"margin: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;=
" class=3D"gmail_quote">you seem to be assuming that not putting words in t=
he dictionary will
<br>mean they don&#39;t exist.<br></blockquote><div>=C2=A0</div><i>What?</i=
> To be clear, I&#39;m certainly not trying to stop people from making up n=
ew=20
words, nor am I trying to slow down the creation of words, if that&#39;s=20
what you&#39;re getting at.  New words are made up all the time -- we then =
add them to the dictionary to clarify their meaning and to help others to l=
earn and use those new words. I don&#39;t know what to say about supposed v=
alsi that exist but which do not appear in the dictionary... except that if=
 they are really part of the language, then those undefined valsi <i>should=
 be defined too.</i> How else would new people learn the full language?<br>=
<br>Most of our discussion so far has been about whether it would be practi=
cal to actually try to update all entries in the dictionary -- or else, how=
 best to implement such a plan. From this, I assumed that we at least gener=
ally agree that the dictionary could do a better job explaining the full me=
aning of the brivla. If we agree on that much, <i>then we should do a bette=
r job</i> explaining the brivla. If this were truly an impractical task, th=
en lojban is doomed to obscurity forever. However, I would argue that updat=
ing the dictionary is perfectly doable if we can just agree that it&#39;s n=
ecessary, and agree on how to do it.<br><br>The task of actually updating t=
he complete dictionary would be more feasible if we first made sure that al=
l <i>new</i> words fill out our template for a more detailed brivla definit=
ion. Then we only have to worry about updating the entries that have alread=
y made it into the dictionary: a large, but finite number.<br><br>Am I bein=
g clear? Does this makes sense?<br><br>~Andrew / cemjig<br><br><br><br>On M=
onday, January 25, 2016 at 8:05:28 PM UTC-8, la stela selckiku wrote:<block=
quote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-le=
ft: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:12 PM, And=
rew &lt;<a href=3D"javascript:" target=3D"_blank" gdf-obfuscated-mailto=3D"=
c-EvBod_CwAJ" rel=3D"nofollow" onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D&#39;javascript:&=
#39;;return true;" onclick=3D"this.href=3D&#39;javascript:&#39;;return true=
;">summerf...@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; Probably the first step, then, should be to enforce the definition=
 template
<br>&gt; for all new words. Currently, I believe, the web form for entering=
 new lujvo
<br>&gt; into la jbovlaste encourages notes about the meanings of each sumt=
i, but it
<br>&gt; doesn&#39;t require it. If all new words suddenly had to fill in t=
his more
<br>&gt; complete template, it would assure that we have a finite number of=
 words to
<br>&gt; review.
<br>
<br>na&#39;i
<br>
<br>You seem to be assuming that not putting words in the dictionary will
<br>mean they don&#39;t exist. Lojban is a living language with lots of
<br>unrecorded words of every sort. Minimizing rather than maximizing the
<br>words included in a dictionary would make that dictionary far less
<br>useful to someone trying to understand the real language.
<br>
<br>&lt;3,
<br>mungojelly/selckiku
<br></blockquote></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http=
s://groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

------=_Part_5350_2060068839.1453869478342--
------=_Part_5349_872731164.1453869478342--