From sentto-44114-19885-1053796381-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Sat May 24 10:13:46 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 24 May 2003 10:13:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.70]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19JcaK-0007Xt-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Sat, 24 May 2003 10:13:32 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-19885-1053796381-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.96] by n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 May 2003 17:13:02 -0000 X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 81254 invoked from network); 24 May 2003 17:13:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 May 2003 17:13:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao03.cox.net) (68.1.17.242) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 May 2003 17:13:00 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org ([68.100.92.1]) by lakemtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20030524171300.GTFX23518.lakemtao03.cox.net@bob.lojban.org> for ; Sat, 24 May 2003 13:13:00 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20030524125133.06b6b7e0@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <7FC7B245-8DD5-11D7-AC97-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> 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: Sat, 24 May 2003 13:12:33 -0400 Subject: [lojban] Re: emotions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 5383 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 08:50 PM 5/24/03 +1000, Nick Nicholas wrote: >And of course, the obligatory flame: > > Message: 18 > > Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 00:32:13 -0400 > > From: Robert LeChevalier > > Subject: Re: emotions > > > > 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. > >Your issue (on those particular words) is with Abbat, not with Kominek >or Powell. Your solution is to propose a canonical word for parasite, >not to vent revulsion. (And I remind you of our recent discussion on >big and small tents.) Please review the thread. Pierre casually mentioned "selparji" as an alternative to a peculiarly Lojbanic application of zdani. Robin, who if anyone should know how to use jbovlaste asked "what is selparji". [At this point I note that "selparji" is NOT defined in jbovlaste.] Jorge then gave the URL for the dictionary record for parji. I looked up that URL, knowing that parji is not on the gismu list, and did not notice any bright red flags. Clicking on the links on that record I find a page "Record For Natural Language Word "parasite" In Language English" which gives parji as the translation with no flags whatsoever. I fired off a quick, late-night flame. I went hunting, eventually found the search page, and it responds to parji and parasite both with no indication that it is non-standard, (nor, checking now, can I find the obvious way to get from the search listing to the dictionary record). I don't view these as things that Robin or Jay did wrong. I think it is premature to dispense with the flat text dictionary file as the quasi-official standard when things are obviously at such a preliminary stage. And if "use the dictionary" means use jbovlaste rather than the flat file, then that jump has already happened. > >> Go stick your head in a pig. > > > > As a dictionary it is useless to me until the non-standard words are > > excluded. That presumably will be done by the byfy. > >Since it's the only dictionary we really have outside the disparate >wordlists, The official raw dictionary file is what I have used for years, and I guess I will continue to use. >and it is not yet standardised anyway, your rejection is >premature. It's certainly more useful than the vapourware dictionary >that LLG never produced. I find the raw dictionary file more useful, and given what has now come up, more trustworthy. >And any publication under bpfk auspices of a >dictionary, generated by jbovlaste or not, will be reviewed by the >bpfk. jbovlaste itself (which will continue to exist in the long term) >has its own democratic process of review; this may or may not be a good >or canonical thing, this may or may not fall under bpfk or LLG >auspices, but I trust that the project administrators will issue all >caveats and disclaimers necessary about non-canonical words (as long as >the baseline holds, at least). Jay's involved in it, for heaven's sake. And by raising the issue, presumably Jay can and will take action if he agrees that disclaimers are needed. > > 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. > >Exptals are clearly delimited. Not from what I could tell. > > 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. > >When jbovlaste is closer to being a standard (and of course, jbovlaste >is very much evolving right now in its content), it will be trivial for >the programmers to add a little flag next to any expt'al word that >comes up on lookup. If you think it should right now as a matter of >priority, log a feature request. I thought that Robin already said once that feature requests can go hang. >Of course, I believe that anyone non-discriminating (that isn't going >to bother to look up the Lojban gloss that comes up, e.g. to check its >place structure) has no business speaking the language. (This will be >viewed as exclusionary, I'm sure.) Not sure how this is relevant. 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 ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA/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/