From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon May 10 09:51:49 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 39618 invoked from network); 10 May 2004 16:51:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 May 2004 16:51:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 May 2004 16:51:48 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.31) id 1BNDwT-00042K-QU for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 10 May 2004 09:47:50 -0700 Received: from dsl081-049-134.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([64.81.49.134] helo=chain.digitalkingdom.org) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.31) id 1BNDvl-00040S-1z; Mon, 10 May 2004 09:47:05 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 10 May 2004 09:47:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postal.seas.wustl.edu ([128.252.21.102]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.31) id 1BNDva-00040C-RN for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 09:46:55 -0700 Received: from clarion.cec.wustl.edu (clarion.cec.wustl.edu [128.252.21.3]) by postal.seas.wustl.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i4AGkkZ19701 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 11:46:46 -0500 Received: from localhost (adam@localhost) by clarion.cec.wustl.edu (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id i4AGkmQo004464 for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 11:46:49 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: clarion.cec.wustl.edu: adam owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 11:46:48 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <20040509174041.GJ5570@digitalkingdom.org> Message-ID: References: <20040509174041.GJ5570@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Status: No, -2.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Report: -2.8/5.0 ---- Start SpamAssassin results -2.80 points, 5 required; * -0.0 -- Has a valid-looking References header * 0.0 -- Message-Id indicates a non-spam MUA (Pine) * -0.4 -- Has a X-Authentication-Warning header * -0.4 -- Has a In-Reply-To header * -0.5 -- BODY: Contains what looks like an email attribution * 0.1 -- BODY: Odd Letter Triples with JB * 0.1 -- BODY: Odd Letter Triples with UJ * 0.0 -- BODY: {2}Letter - garbage - {4}Letter * 0.6 -- BODY: {2}Letter - punctuation - {4}Letter * 0.0 -- BODY: {4}Letter - garbage - {1}Letter * 0.7 -- BODY: Selling something * -2.6 -- BODY: Bayesian classifier says spam probability is 20 to 30% [score: 0.2506] * -0.4 -- BODY: Contains what looks like a quoted email text * 0.0 -- Reply with quoted text ---- End of SpamAssassin results X-archive-position: 7742 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: adam@pubcrawler.org X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: "Adam D. Lopresto" From: "Adam D. Lopresto" Reply-To: adam@pubcrawler.org Subject: [lojban] Re: jbovlaste lujvo definitions -- opinions wanted. X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22205 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 have since decided that the latter is more readable, because it lets > the reader know at a glance how many places there are, and which place > is where, without having to count them. > > Before changing the help and asking people to change their definitions, > I'd like to see what people on the list think. Do you prefer one over > the other? I'd much prefer the form with places marked explicitly. Makes it much easier if you're using only a subset of the places, or if you want to write it out of order ("x_3=b_2 is a moan/sigh/wail of agony/anguish/distress, emitted by x_1=d_1=b_1 and provoked by x_2=d_2"). > If you prefer the second form, should "x_1" always be used, > or the first letter of the lujvo, or a series of letters representing > the lujvo ("bd_1" in the case of ba'urdu'u) ? "x_1" is easiest. In most cases, the lujvo will share an initial letter with its first component, so you're going to have a lot of duplication. And it's more in line with the gismu definitions. -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/ Do not stare into optical mouse with remaining eye.