[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bpfk] BPFK work - getting it done.
Jonathan Jones wrote:
> From the cmavo list at
http://www.lojban.org/publications/wordlists/cmavo_selmaho_order.txt:
baba - PU* - will be going to - time tense: will be going to;
(tense/modal)
Personally, I'm in agreement with you. But I'm working on describing the
unfinished cmavo entries in the BPFK sections, this is one of the
entries, and that's it's official definition, stupid as it is.
I would like to at this time seek approval for removing the following
entries from the BPFK Section: Tense
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+Tense> page:
{baba}¹
{bapu}¹
{puba}¹
{pupu}¹
At the time these were added, they were the best Lojban equivalents of
certain aspects. We later added another set of cmavo that solved the
problem in a different way, but it was not clear that the two systems
were totally redundant. This was before the "Imaginary Journeys
paradigm" was invented.
{baca'a}²
{caca'a}²
{cajeba}²
{puca'a}²
{pujeba}²
{pujeca}²
{puza}²
{puze'a}²
{puze'i}²
{puze'u}²
{puzi}²
{puzu}²
These and many other compounds were added to the cmavo list to show how
cmavo could be used in combination within the grammar, and incidentally
to provide Lojban equivalents for certain English usages and expressions.
There was no CLL at the time, and most Lojbanists did not learn or
understand the grammar from the YACC or EBNF formats, but from these
sorts of compounds being present in the cmavo list, with translations.
¹ Official meaning differs from usage.
If these differ, it should be relatively easy to demonstrate this, and
show what they SHOULD mean. Eliminating them is a change (to the cmavo
list which is a baseline document), and needs to be justified.
I suspect that I will agree with you that either they shouldn't be kept,
or that their meaning needs to be changed/clarified.
>as well as being non-intuitive
One would want any non-intuitive compounds to be explicitly documented.
² Meaning is obvious given meaning of components and therefore does not
need it's own entry.
Possible true for someone with a thorough understanding of the
components and how they work together. But such understanding isn't
something that should be presumed of the typical user of the books and
wordlists. Lots of examples are good!
Equally important, again, is that there is an English-to-Lojban
direction for a dictionary or word list, and not just a
Lojban-to-English direction. (Replace English by any other language as
desired.) That we usually look at wordlists in Lojban-to-English order
doesn't reflect that they were designed for use in both directions.
(Given the difference in the various natural languages, different
natural languages would probably warrant different compounds being shown
in their respective bilingual lists.)
In my own half-completed definition of "pu" I was planning on including
those (pu) compounds that had indeed seen usage in the corpus (some of
which are not in the cmavo list), and then arguing for elimination of
the rest as not necessary for pedagogical or usage reasons.
lojbab
--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi
patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "BPFK" group.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.