From gregory.dyke@epfl.ch Tue Apr 01 05:22:06 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 01 Apr 2003 05:22:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail0.epfl.ch ([128.178.50.57])
	by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 190LiB-0002PW-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2003 05:21:59 -0800
Received: (qmail 29067 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2003 13:21:57 -0000
Received: from sicdec1.epfl.ch (128.178.50.33)
  by mail0.epfl.ch with SMTP; 1 Apr 2003 13:21:57 -0000
Received: (from apache@localhost)
	by sicdec1.epfl.ch (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h31DLv330918
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:21:57 +0200
Received: from 128.178.164.136 ( [128.178.164.136])
	as user dyke@imap.epfl.ch by imapwww.epfl.ch with HTTP;
	Tue,  1 Apr 2003 15:21:57 +0200
Message-ID: <1049203317.3e8992752c8f6@imapwww.epfl.ch>
X-Imap-User: gregory.dyke@epfl.ch
Date: Tue,  1 Apr 2003 15:21:57 +0200
From: gregory.dyke@epfl.ch
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Jbovlaste formatting
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.1
X-Originating-IP: 128.178.164.136
X-archive-position: 4703
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: gregory.dyke@epfl.ch
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


How do we go about making jbovlaste as unified as possible? And how do we
"cooperate" on this cooperative quest?

Take the entry barkla:

http://www.lojban.org/jbovlaste/dict/barkla

This was recorded from noralujvo (I expect) and then Robin tried to make it more
sensible.

1) there is no point in removing klama2=bartu1 because this would give a synonym
for the better barli'u so I wrote a new definition.

2) Robin got his k_2 and b_1 mixed up with k_3 and b_2, so his definition was
not quite right. If this had been the only problem, should I put a comment
(which apparently gets mailed to robin) or write my own definition with just the
correct x_?'s

3) Do we want our lujvo to be defined:

k1 goes out to k2=b1 which is outside of k3=b2 by route k4 with means of
transport k5

or

x1=k1 goes out to x2=k2=b1 etc.

I thought we only put the x_?'s in when we had decided to reorder stuff.

4) Should all english verbs have a "to" in front (robin created "exit" and "to
exit")? 

5)how should exit the verb be separated from exit the noun? we currently have:

exit in the sense of leave
exit in the sense of an action

and I was thinking of having either:

exit; action
exit; verb

(how does this work when we don't have a convenient synonym?)


mi'e greg
mu'o