From lojbab@lojban.org Fri May 23 21:33:23 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 23 May 2003 21:33:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lakemtao04.cox.net ([68.1.17.241]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19JQia-0005Ib-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 23 May 2003 21:33:16 -0700 Received: from bob.lojban.org ([68.100.92.1]) by lakemtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20030524043244.CAWF13930.lakemtao04.cox.net@bob.lojban.org> for ; Sat, 24 May 2003 00:32:44 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20030524002114.03f61b10@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 00:32:13 -0400 To: lojban-list@lojban.org From: Robert LeChevalier Subject: [lojban] Re: emotions In-Reply-To: <20030523222807.GF7476@digitalkingdom.org> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030523180338.036497d0@pop.east.cox.net> <20030523194202.GC7476@digitalkingdom.org> <5.2.0.9.0.20030523180338.036497d0@pop.east.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-archive-position: 5371 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 03:28 PM 5/23/03 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > >What's a dictionary for? :) > > > > > >http://www.lojban.org/jbovlaste/dict/parji > > > > Maybe he, like me, refuses to recognize words that are not Lojban. > > > > BTW, the inclusion of such things in jvovlaste means that I for > > one have no particular interest in using the thing. It cannot be > > a standard for the language until the byfy decides to weed out the > > garbage. > >You've just rejected something on the order of 80 man-hours on the >basis of a *single* *word*. It did unfortunately happen to be the first word I've ever looked up. I can't help it that I feel extreme revulsion when it seems like my 15 years of fighting for a solid baseline, with clear delineation between valid and invalid usage according to the language prescription, is being undermined. >Go stick your head in a pig. I am not rejecting the man-hours. I'm sure you and Jay have done a Very Good Thing. As a dictionary it is useless to me until the non-standard words are excluded. That presumably will be done by the byfy. Because the policy of its use allows standard and non-standard Lojban to be entered as if the two were equal in value, I strongly question that policy. It means that someone looking up the word for keyword X may get an invalid answer, and non discriminating users (probably most people) will take that answer as gospel. I can't support a policy of "usage will decide" along with a policy that promotes non-baseline solutions as being equal to baseline-compliant solutions. 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