From sentto-44114-14925-1028670585-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Tue Aug 06 14:50:19 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 06 Aug 2002 14:50:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n33.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.101]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17cCDZ-00031u-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Tue, 06 Aug 2002 14:50:17 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-14925-1028670585-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.193] by n33.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Aug 2002 21:49:46 -0000 X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 6 Aug 2002 21:49:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 75150 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2002 21:49:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Aug 2002 21:49:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao03.cox.net) (68.1.17.242) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Aug 2002 21:49:44 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20020806214943.DNBC1975.lakemtao03.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2002 17:49:43 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020806173358.03249370@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020805225835.00abfa10@pop.east.cox.net> From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 17:45:33 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: non-core translations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 455 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list At 07:26 PM 8/6/02 +0000, araizen wrote: >la lojbab cusku di'e > > I think you are misconstruing the baseline. >Indeed I was. In fact, how you describe the situation, all that is >really baselined is the list of actual gismu with their general >meaning as set by the keyword. Everything else could theoretically be >open to debate and change if a consensus is reached. I was under the >impression that the whole list was baselined and would be considered >the defining document for the dictionary. Your former impression is correct. The baselining clearly was intended to freeze the place structures as well as the words and keywords. I opposed freezing the place structures but was outvoted. Even so, baseline or not, ANYTHING can be changed by consensus of the community since we are hardly a dictatorship by a cabal as people have (hopefully jokingly) suggested. But consensus is unlikely to be reached on anything more than minor stuff BECAUSE of the baseline. >I think that the gismu list, as it is currently organized, consists >of three parts: keyword, basic definition for logflash, longer >definition with clarifications, lujvo, etc. We don't have much in the way of "longer definitions" which I think is what most people would wish for as "clarification". There are notes beyond column 160 of the gismu list, but they are indeed "notes" and not definitions. If longer definitions with clarification could be agreed upon by consensus, and they did not contradict the shorter definitions, they could probably be used without it being a violation of the baseline, but getting such consensus on any of the words needing clarification is the problem. > When translating, for >example, the most important thing is to get a keyword for the gismu, >and then you translate the base definition, and then the additional >clarification (the additional clarifications have not yet been >translated into Spanish, for example, though perhaps they didn't >exist when that translation was made). You could leave the current >definition in place and still add clarifications which could be >considered part of the baseline when the dictionary is published. >(Either by adding a new clarification section, or by adding to the >last clarification section with the lujvo etc.) It is well known that >there are many gismu whose keyword is very misleading, and the >generally accepted solution is simply to ignore the keyword and >concentrate on the entire definition. If you need to change the >baseline definition, you could do it with minimal damage to the long >accepted definition. I agree that the keyword is NOT a particularly important thing to be translated. Indeed, more importan that exact meanings for "translating" keywords is to look at the gismu etymology (where the target language is one of the base languages or is cognate with one of those languages for the concept, as well as the meaning, and to remember the LogFlash requirement for unique keywords. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Free $5 Love Reading Risk Free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/09Lw8C/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/GSaulB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/