From lojbab@lojban.org Tue Nov 28 19:22:50 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 29 Nov 2000 03:22:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 11334 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 03:22:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Nov 2000 03:22:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-5.cais.net) (205.252.14.75) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 03:22:49 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (113.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.113]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id eAT3P6k74870 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:25:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from lojbab@lojban.org) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001128221415.00c50dc0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:25:32 -0500 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Problematic entries in the lujvo list In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20001125135530.01308e20@pop.stud.ntnu.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 4878 At 01:55 PM 11/25/2000 +0100, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: >While reviewing the lujvo list, I have come across several entries which >seem erroneous or problematic, and which I don't know quite how to deal with. > >For instance, "baljamna" is glossed as "great war", but the place structure >clearly shows that the x1 of "baljamna" is the same as that of "jamna" -- >ie. "to be at war with". So the keyword should be changed. Keywords do not necessarily have to refer to the x1 of the brivla. They indicate briefly the concept, which the place structure and definition may elaborate on to indicate how the keyword relates to the brivla. In this case it sounds like the keyword actually refers to the nu event of the brivla. Adding such an annotation is a good idea, but does not mean that the keyword is wrong - merely that we need a second lujvo for the nu event. >"Great >warrior" seems to be more like "balsoi", and "to be greatly at war" seems >to long-winded. Any suggestions? > >Then I have noticed that several entries in the lujvo list are more than >one word long! For instance, this one: > limna bravau limna barda+vasru: swimming pool >Should such entries be kept in the lujvo list, or perhaps moved somewhere >else? (A tanru list?) The lujvo list was originally created by Nick Nicholas. It consisted of the lujvo that had appeared in texts, and where he found those lujvo malformed or inappropriate, he suggested alternatives, which sometimes were better as tanru than as lujvo. We thus keep them in the lujvo list because the are replacements or alternatives to other lujvo that appeared in text. This type of thing will show up easily when the lists are compiled into the dictionary. Finally, it is possible that a lujvo may have no common use on its own, but will usually appear in either longer lujvo or as part of tanru, thus the existence as part of a suggested tanru again helps give us an English keyword. >Finally, I've come across "cfatse", which is intended to mean "sit down". >But "zutse" already means "sit down", so this lujvo is pleonastic at best, >and meaningless at worst. Any ideas as to how to interpret this? (Has the >meaning of "zutse" ever been plainly "sit"?) It means plainly "sit" with additional metaphorical example for actions that resemble sitting (being in a sitting position). (Does a cat or dog "sit" in the human sense? Not really. Can a book sit on a table? maybe, but I don't think it can be said to zutse. On the other hand, a toy doll could be described with zutse if the position was recognizably like that of human sitting.) lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org