From lojban+bncCN673cmqFBCHt7_qBBoEgpoqHQ@googlegroups.com Mon Feb 07 03:46:31 2011 Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PmPY3-0004JB-Ll; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 03:46:31 -0800 Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20sf3014382gwb.16 for ; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 03:46:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:x-vr-score :x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:user-agent :x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=ZUqlJ/I/lGCMgO+tGXfsml8M65SKNyJXvHqX74MP85E=; b=YBn3typPInRxs9DZNfHBZ6UOrD3ezTjPKoCrDMKcmLMIyT+OCpz5IgO+sv0eGKAn91 qzuG6D9rqHP8a51gNZ0GflFZcM542g9Ui684WTqRYL6Fo5VWuv30z2dpsTq0UBCL2MXO ph2MAxeC+KokbMt0ZY/saQNLnhUc78TWgRBrE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-vr-score:x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score :message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=MHAdU6OIwgwCx8R8q08sqj/WOXmamtUpeCgnTbeRsXqi8aroE+6hV1Yc0QhMSHWGrg 6kuOavnQe4v5lygV0ZVLW4xWKRU1XLSDrGFTL6uUHA61qPl5vM0zLylU5p7ZRNZ8PF1k UGtPmkbDJ9/tWI/BH8h3lOOEOtYgzgKt3hY5k= Received: by 10.147.171.4 with SMTP id y4mr216749yao.6.1297079175328; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 03:46:15 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.91.208.35 with SMTP id k35ls1099247agq.5.p; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 03:46:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.147.99.4 with SMTP id b4mr535907yam.26.1297079174289; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 03:46:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.147.99.4 with SMTP id b4mr535906yam.26.1297079174271; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 03:46:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from eastrmmtao104.cox.net (eastrmmtao104.cox.net [68.230.240.46]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id g44si464400yhd.10.2011.02.07.03.46.13; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 03:46:14 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.240.46 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.240.46; Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <20110207114614.QPSS12550.eastrmmtao104.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2011 06:46:14 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.187.237.100]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id 4zm81g00B2AfMYu02zm82J; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 06:46:13 -0500 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=CErAQootkRBz377Bz7Q837wqI8FvX+s0yTsaI6UO7oU= c=1 sm=1 a=6Vw-GGEYjH8A:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:17 a=DVT7h7_IAAAA:8 a=4RBUngkUAAAA:8 a=ThWbHNyu73Q-B8GyoLgA:9 a=iFmuhvcAcKG7g6DBCIUA:7 a=QIJhAYcOPBfGZv2bTW-WA9C8Z2wA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=SlQonjVeloUA:10 a=Bm6qEjDGwGEA:10 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4D4FDB7E.4080407@lojban.org> Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 06:46:06 -0500 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] [non]Dictionary form of lujvo References: <201102061646.20030.phma@phma.optus.nu> <4D4F36A4.8030501@kli.org> <904573.59341.qm@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <904573.59341.qm@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.240.46 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed John E Clifford wrote: > Hell, list 'em all, with cross references to the fullest form, where all the > details are spelled out. > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Mark E. Shoulson > To: lojban@googlegroups.com > Sent: Sun, February 6, 2011 6:02:44 PM > Subject: Re: [lojban] [non]Dictionary form of lujvo > > On 02/06/2011 04:46 PM, Pierre Abbat wrote: > >>On Sunday 06 February 2011 16:02:10 Alex Rozenshteyn wrote: >> >>>For example, I like {tolcliva} better than I like {tolyli'a}. Is there a >>>convention stating that I should use the latter? >> >>There's a convention saying that each form gets a score and the scores >>determine which one is the canonical form. All the forms are equally valid; I >>prefer "tolcliva" too. I once used "ci'onrai" for scansion reasons. >> >>Pierre > > > IMO, for a true "dictionary" form, one it's filed under alphabetically, you > should use the fully expanded form, with all rafsi in 4- or 5-letter form... > which doesn't apply here, since cmavo don't have 4-letter rafsi. But in general > with gismu. So ci'onrai would be citnytraji > > ~mark My intent for the original concept of the Lojban dictionary (or what it is worth), was to list the canonical form first, and then follow it, probably in parens, with other forms that have seen actual usage. If any of these other forms had seen MORE usage than the canonical form, then they would get a separate entry with definition, but with cross-reference to the canonical form, in the first dictionary. Then if usage continued to favor this form over the canonical one, then a later edition of the dictionary would make the cross-reference in the other direction, indicating that the alternate form was preferred in usage to the canonical one. Page count in a printed dictionary is a vital consideration. No one is likely to want to carry a me la uebstr around with them, even if they could afford to buy it. And I was hoping and even expecting more words rather than more forms of fewer words, after seeing what had already been used in Lojban text (see the noralujv file/project). I was ambivalently considering having the expanded-form listed as a separate entry, but without definition, or with only a keyword definition, and a cross-reference to the canonical or preferred form. Whether to include these or not would have probably been primarily determined by the page count. For on-line lookups, including long-forms is fine (and gives someone the choice between looking up using long-form, probably typical for someone who has coined a lujvo and wants to see if it has already been used or defined, and isn't certain of how to figure the canonical form, and looking up the canonical form which is the form we would expect to see most used in text for words that have seen significant usage). But the page count issue was even from the beginning militating against multiple forms in a printed dictionary. In an only-online format, including other forms, even "all of them" as pc suggests, is plausible ONLY if the other-form entries are all automagically generated from one of the two forms I had intended to consider. By the time you get to 4 part lujvo, the number of forms can be enormous. lojbab -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.