On 28/05/2015 16:56, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
Also etymology somewhat contradicts my proposal: https://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/131 where we have etymology only in Lojban whereas for the other languages they can be generated by third party software like those that produce printable dictionaries.Uh, what are they generating from, then?
As I understood in this proposal for every language there is a separate entry with etymology. All such entries can be autogenerated from Lojban one.
I'm not certain whether Naours suggest there should be one etymology field for each definition.
I can imagine a case where two experimental cmavo or gismu would have two distinct and incompatible definitions, along with two unrelated source/etymology
, although that seems to be a pretty uncommon case.
On the other hand, copying manually the etymology field to each definition would be a boring task, if not a chore.
Another option would be to have definitions grouped by proposed meaning (each of those meaning groups would probably be restricted to one definition entry per language), and have one etymology field attached to each proposed meaning group, so as to avoid redundancy.
mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.