Re: [lojban] Re: jbovlaste lujvo definitions -- opinions wanted.

[jcowan@reutershealth.com]

Arnt Richard Johansen scripsit:

> I definitely prefer the former in most cases, because of aesthetics (which
> translates to ease of reading). In cases where the places are not
> mentioned in the same order in the natlang explanation as the real order
> of the places, x_1= etc. is in order (no pun intended).

+1

> I think the reason we use free-text definitions at all (as opposed to
> merely a mapping between lujvo and gismu places) is to minimize the
> difference between lujvo and gismu. According to this spirit, we should
> keep the index letter as x.

+1

Note that the Red Book uses two-letter prefixes to disambiguate when 1) multiple
gismu start with the same letter, or 2) one or more gismu start with "x".
Thus a lujvo built on xagmu would use xa_1, xa_2, etc.

The extension to su'oci letters should be obvious.

-- 
The man that wanders far                        jcowan@reutershealth.com
from the walking tree                           http://www.reutershealth.com
        --first line of a non-existent poem by:         John Cowan


To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     lojban-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/