Received: from spooler by stryx.demon.co.uk (Mercury/32 v2.01); 1 Nov 98 23:52:41 +0000 Return-path: Received: from punt-11.mail.demon.net (194.217.242.34) by stryx.demon.co.uk (Mercury/32 v2.01); 1 Nov 98 23:52:40 +0000 Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net by mailstore for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk id 909837961:10:03181:1; Sat, 31 Oct 98 12:46:01 GMT Received: from listserv.cuny.edu ([128.228.100.10]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa1003169; 31 Oct 98 12:46 GMT Received: from listserv (listserv.cuny.edu) by listserv.cuny.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <1.FE9FD6A2@listserv.cuny.edu>; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 7:48:02 -0500 Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 14:40:58 +0200 Reply-To: Robin Turner Sender: Lojban list From: Robin Turner Subject: Re: Lojban dictionary program? X-To: Lojban List To: Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN Message-ID: <909837960.103169.0@listserv.cuny.edu> X-PMFLAGS: 33554560 7 1 Y0362A.CNM Content-Length: 2057 Lines: 61 "Jorge J. Llamb=EDas" wrote: > la robin cusku di'e > >mi gleki le nu la florent. cu tcidu le se ciska pe mi > > i mi ji'a gleki i a'o so'ida tcidu le se ciska be so'ide bau la lojban > > >.u'u.u'i lo vlacku na vasru le piso'i mi valsi goi ko'a ki'u ko'a na > >ge'adra > > i le vlacku na'e vasru piso'e lei mi valsi ki'u le nu le vlacku cu se f= inti > pu le nu mi co'a ciska > > >[Questions: can you use 'vasru' for books, and can "na ge'adra" be use= d > >for a malformed lujvo?] > > Yes and yes, in my opinion. But be careful with the use of {na}. > It often doesn't negate what you want to negate. In this case, you are > not saying that the words are not contained. Maybe {na} will end up > having shorter scope than the whole bridi though, because everybody > uses it as English "not". Hmm. If I have understand this correctly .... le vlacku na vasru piso'e lei mi valsi It-is-not-the-case-that that-which-I term dictionary contains many-of the-mass-of-that-which-I-term my words could mean that there is in fact no dictionary, or that there is a dictio= nary but it does not containa ny of my words at all, or even that it it has no= words in it whatsoever (e.g. if someone has started to write a dictionary but o= nly got as far as the title page). le vlacku na'e vasru piso'e lei mi valsi that-which-I term dictionary does-something-other-than-contain many-of the-mass-of-that-which-I-term my words means that I assert the existence of something that I call a dictionary, = and that it contains something (presumably words) but many of my words are no= t included in it. Presumably a simpler way to say this would be: mo'a lei mi valsi se vasru le vlacku co'o mi'e robin.