Date: Mon, 14 Jun 93 23:32:05 EDT
From: lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group)
Message-Id: <9306150332.AA29313@grebyn.com>
To: nsn@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU
Subject: Re: your mail
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011

Sorry if I was a bit harsh in my criticism in the version I sent you.
Even if Nora doesn't tell me to do so, I intend to tone it down some.
I will try to take account of your comments (much faster than last time)
since JL didn't get out today.  You are probably correct that we have 
differences on lexicalization.  To me the language unambiguity requires that
cmavo not compound unless the grammar supports compounding - na'igo'i,
if patterned after na go'i, is just plain wrong.  As for making things
part of the lexicon if they are things that would go into a dictionary, and
vice versa - that is my orientation towards computer text processing.

My argument on the brackets was basically that of Nora's - a text that 
needs brackets to be understood is probably too complex.  I don't find
simple relatives or abstarct cluases difficult at all, and when I do,
that is what kei and ku'o are for.

As for associating quote and speaker - you would have been fine with an
.i with each pair - that is merely eliding on selbri that relates them.
However we DID put in sei and cu'u and a variety of other things
primarily to allow you to explicitly stick in the he siad/she saids.  My
commet was as much confusion (I could n't tell who said what from the
Lojban) and an eq2ual part protest that you seemed to be putting stylistic
consideration ahead of using the tools we put into the language.  I f they
aren't good enough, we oughta get this on the table on L.L. and get it resolved
damned quick.

I think my comments on algortihmicness, at least when it comes to line breaks
etc. is that when you want such things they should be flagged in the text.
For example, you long paenthetical digression is modifying zdidabysnu - is
that essential, or would a simply ".i to ..." have done as well - I suspect
that where you insert these parentheticals is more determined by where
they would go in English rather than c;early having to do with the grammar
of where you are inserting them, unless you are omitting 'vau's and the like
that would make some more sense.

I think at bottom I was protesting because the editor de jour thing meant
that I shouldn;t have to be reviewing text, and here I was on short deadline
with a text that hadn't as far as I know been reviewed by anyone, and which
I felt incompetent to format, much less understand the Lojban.  The complaint
was as much directed at Colin, and others who were going to be helping
review stuff (who knows what happened to Mark S. who says nothing these
days, and all the other potential editors except Colin have been almost
silent as well.)

The complaint on the other texts - well I'll take out the comment on the 
parser, if you say it parsed.  But it was missing a "cu", so I don't see
how (I think that was the  card player), and I only hope that I guessed
right on your intent for "fansu".  (Oh that grammar error, since I 
didn't identify it:  ko'a joi le notcrida klama fo le daptutra gi'e viska
la xades. ... (the pooarser blows up on gi'e, but it is the cu before 
klama that is missing) - I can't remember what the othr error was, but it might
have been something more likely to be due ot a grammar change.

All this goes to show that we all need to have our Lojban ytext reviewed
(including me, by the way), and it shouldn't be waiting till the day before
JL goes out, when I've got a dictionary fire burning my behind with LogFest
only 4 weeks away and absolutely no work done on it.

Thanks for letting me let off steam and taking it with as good of humor
as you did.  The project has plenty of room for disagreements as to style
as well as substance, and I don;t want you to think that I think less s of you
as a Lojbanist or as a good chap just because we disagree at times.

lojbab