From arj@nvg.org Mon May 10 08:24:06 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 10 May 2004 08:24:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67] ident=[o4W2RpswECkkkX4RUtsMWjWKm3gmiE51]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.31) id 1BNCdK-0002lx-PG for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 08:23:59 -0700 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no ([IPv6:::ffff:129.241.210.68]:19664 "EHLO hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no" ident: "NO-IDENT-SERVICE[2]" whoson: "gunnarre") by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no with ESMTP id ; Mon, 10 May 2004 17:18:01 +0200 Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 17:23:48 +0200 (CEST) From: Arnt Richard Johansen X-X-Sender: arj@hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: jbovlaste lujvo definitions -- opinions wanted. In-Reply-To: <20040510024204.GV5570@digitalkingdom.org> Message-ID: References: <20040509174041.GJ5570@digitalkingdom.org> <20040510024204.GV5570@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-archive-position: 7737 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: arj@nvg.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Sun, 9 May 2004, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 09:44:41PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > > On Sun, 9 May 2004, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > > In http://www.lojban.org/jbovlaste/help/definitions.html I tell > > > people to write definitions like > > > > > > d_1=b_1 bitches/whines/expresses anguish about d_2 with > > > utterance/sound(s) b_2 > > > > > > rather than > > > > > > x_2=d_1=b_1 bitches/whines/expresses anguish about x_2=d_2 with > > > utterance/sound(s) x_3=b_2 > > > > I definitely prefer the former in most cases, because of aesthetics > > (which translates to ease of reading). > > Let me double-check: you find a definition that does not include the > numbers of the places to be *more* readable? Yes. My view might be in minority here, but I do think it is more visually lightweight. Also, in most cases (ie. with 3 or less places) there's no problem in counting the places, or otherwise perceiving where they go. -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Inuktitut iis eesseentiiaallyy Fiinniish aas spooqqeen iin Greenlaand. --Clint Jackson Baker, via Essentialist Explanations