On Wednesday, Mar 12, 2003, at 06:06 Australia/Melbourne, Robin Lee
Powell wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 01:56:18PM -0500, Rob Speer wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 07:10:44AM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 11 March 2003 06:38, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:
>>>> Although I do think that many of the natlang words should not be
>>>> voted on at all. Having lots of entries like "butter source" and
>>>> "goodness standard" in the dictionary would be rather inane, IMAO.
>>>
>>> I don't think it's wrong to have "butter source" in the dictionary,
>>> but a lot of the definitions of attitudinals are wrong. {ii}, for
>>> instance, should not be translated "fear". It's something you say
>>> when you're afraid, not something you say to talk about fear.
>>> Similarly, cruelty is kamkusru, not uunai.
>> I think that most oblique places like "butter source" _should_ be left
>> out. Unless it's a point of pride to be the only dictionary in
>> existence with an entry for "thing having gonad".
>
> They should all be in jbovlaste.
>
> Weeding out the crap is the job of the dictionary editor.
>
> That being said, I suppose people can feel free to not vote on *really*
> useless keywords. But that should be Nick's call.
Tis is outrageously late, but I agree. Let the automated 'useless' x2s
and x5s be populated in jbovlaste. It *is* a judgement call which ones
get excised in a print dictionary, and that judgement call is to be
made by the dictionary editor. Bearing in mind that a lot more of these
words turn out to be useful than first thought. But jbovlaste is there
to provide raw materials; I don't see how anyone can make the
judgement, right now, what is and isn't a useful x5.