Message-Id: <9203200806.AA20977@relay1.UU.NET>
Date:         Thu, 19 Mar 1992 23:52:30 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <cbmvax!uunet!grebyn.com!lojbab>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!LOJBAN>
From: Logical Language Group <cbmvax!uunet!grebyn.com!lojbab>
Subject:      corpus of Lojban text
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
Status: RO

>Dump your text into some corpus. I don't know if the PLS is suitable.

Given what Mark and Jerry have told me, that prefer to keep PLS from dealing
with open-ended accumulations.

All text posted to Lojban-List, as well as all text sent to me, is archived,
whether or not we analyze it here.  It will eventually be analyzable by those
building dictionaries, or looking at the evolution of the language (I do also
keep the drafts and the comments when I get them, since these often reveal
WHY a text ended up the way it did.)

The people here are analyzing text at a truly slow rate (Tuesday nite group
is only doiung a paragraph or two, and that group will be switching to
class mode woithin a couple of months).  I hope this will pick up when we
have Nora's version of Shoebox, or if Mark gets his version in a shape that
someone else vcan use it.  When anlyzing text (as opposed to merely having
fun practicing reading it, both Nora and I feel obliged to check every
word's place structures and a bunch of other things, as well as not to trust
our memories on either glosses or place structures.  Thus, I can read Lojban
text MUCH faster than I 'analyze' it.

Also, both Nora and I analyze text on paper much better than on-line, which
presents the problem of getting the results typoed in.

Thus, our mechanism for reviewing text should have no relation to what
people do with text they have written.  I would still like a copy sent here
for archival purposes.  That archive can serve as the 'corpus' Nick talks
about.  I'm not sure what can be done to make more old texts available on-line
for others not in DC to access.

lojbab