From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:45:54 2010 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list Date: Wed Dec 6 20:17:04 1995 From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: length vs longness To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 6 20:17:04 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: la stivn cusku di'e > :: for weight > :: for length in longest dimension > :: for length in the second longest dimension > :: for length in shortest dimension > > You don't need analogous words for when talking about weight. I > realize this is simple stuff, but it sure confused me. I have found it > quite helpful to take related gismu and group their definitions together to > sort out exactly what they mean. lojbab seemed to think that a thesaurus > would not make sense for lojban, maybe something *like* a thesaurus would > be helpful. Of course, if the definitions were structured cleverly, one > could imbed them in a database to look at the gismu in this way and make > your *own* minithesaurus each time you were stuck. I did make a sort of classification of gismu when doing the translation of the gismu list into Spanish. (BTW, the translation is almost ready. Jose is now revising/improving it, and hopefully it will be ready before the end of the year.) There is an underlying regularity of the place structures, but unfortunately there was a lot of liberality about exceptions. > If there are only 70 gismu that have sumti for standards, why not drop the > standards? Is it too late to do this? Is this part of the language already > baselined? I don't think place structures are officially baselined yet, there have been one or two small changes in the last couple of years. I would certainly be in favour of a much needed rationalization there. Jorge