On May 27, 2015 at 5:49:52 PM, selpa'i (seladwa@gmx.de) wrote: la durka cu cusku di'e
> As for sumti slots in lujvo definitions, I favor the hybrid system
> (x1=g1=s2 is a thing with ...). It's visually noisy, but it manages to
> (1) number the places without obliging the reader to count and (2) show
> the "etymology" of each place, where that is relevant. I consider (1)
> more important -- perhaps the notes are a better place to say which
> terjvo came from which veljvo.
I would think so. I prefer the simplest method: just x_n. Not everyone
cares about the origin of the lujvo places, and all those letters
clutter up the definition and make it look more like math than anything.
Fair enough. Sometimes it's easier to grok a lujvo definition when you can think, "oh, okay, this place is like bangu2 so it's an agent" but arguably this should be clear from the definition without looking into the etymology. And with naljvajvo it doesn't make sense. I do think that lujvo in jvajvo style, or close to it, should list their derivations somewhere.
What I thought could work is to have an extra field apart from the
general notes field that can be used to give information about place
structure patterns ("families") and other place structure background.
Maybe a good dictionary frontend would allow the user to choose if they
want this field to be visible (like a show/hide button). Much like
etymology, it's not necessary to know about it, but it can be of value
to the interested.
+1
I do think the definitions should be as easy to read as possible, and
readable by a layperson.
I talked to some people a while ago, and they told me the definition
style scared them off, because it reminded them of math. It wouldn't
hurt Lojban to cater to a wider audience (as crazy as that may sound!)
by making sure that any person with any background can access it. When
giving lessons to non-math/non-programming people I sometimes use
unnumbered blanks written by underscores, because the concept of filling
in the blanks is easy to grasp and less intimidating than "filling
argument places" for certain people. It looks like this:
dunda: ___ gives ___ to ___
I'm not saying this should replace the x1,x2,x3 style, but I think it is
a good alternative that could be implemented in some potential
dictionary interface as an additional option. Everyone should be able to
feel comfortable reading the dictionary.
Definitely a good dictionary viewer could have an option to hide the xN and show blanks instead.
mi'e la selpa'i 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.
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.
|