From @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Nov 28 00:50:59 1992 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sat, 28 Nov 1992 05:54:08 -0500 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4013; Sat, 28 Nov 92 05:50:48 EST Received: from UGA.BITNET by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) with BSMTP id 6030; Sat, 28 Nov 92 05:50:48 EST Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1992 05:50:59 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: a little aside: lojban dictionary? X-To: fly@GEOG.BUFFALO.EDU X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: <5caIDZ-F1gF.A.8RE.Zt0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Yep, it's been discussed many times, with several different varieties of answers to your question of 'how'. John Parks-Clifford even wrote a sample definition of some word or another. I find your constraints a bit beyond anything I've ever seen in lexicography, though. I think you'd be hard pressed to define any word in ENGLISH without recourse to synonyms, metaphors, and negative terms, if you further insist (as seems likely) that all content words used in the definition themselves also be defined under the same constraint. Lojban definitions, unlike standard English dictionary definitions, must define not only the semantics of the gismu relation, but also each of the places that is being related to show how it fits into the relation. (This is akin to requiring all English words to 1) be defined as verbs, and 2) define the effect of ALL English prepositions when used with each verb, realizing that most English prepositions have multiple meanings depending on the verb they modify.) There is no reason to believe that a Lojban-only dictionary COULD be done, but an obvious question at this point is why someone would write one. The purpose of a book is to be read or referenced, not generally to prove that it can be written. There is as of yet no one that could effectively use a Lojban-only dictionary. I am curious as to why the high standards for such a dictionary. lojbab