Re: Lojban dictionary program?

[Robin Turner <robin@BILKENT.EDU.TR>]

"Jorge J. Llamb=EDas" wrote:

> la robin cusku di'e
> >mi gleki le nu la florent. cu tcidu le se ciska pe mi
>
> i mi ji'a gleki i a'o so'ida tcidu le se ciska be so'ide bau la lojban
>
> >.u'u.u'i lo vlacku na vasru le piso'i mi valsi goi ko'a ki'u ko'a na
> >ge'adra
>
> i le vlacku na'e vasru piso'e lei mi valsi ki'u le nu le vlacku cu se f=
inti
> pu le nu mi co'a ciska
>
> >[Questions: can you use 'vasru' for books, and can "na ge'adra" be use=
d
> >for a malformed lujvo?]
>
> Yes and yes, in my opinion. But be careful with the use of {na}.
> It often doesn't negate what you want to negate. In this case, you are
> not saying that the words are not contained. Maybe {na} will end up
> having shorter scope than the whole bridi though, because everybody
> uses it as English "not".

Hmm. If I have understand this correctly ....

le vlacku na vasru piso'e lei mi valsi
It-is-not-the-case-that that-which-I term dictionary contains many-of
the-mass-of-that-which-I-term my words

could mean that there is in fact no dictionary, or that there is a dictio=
nary
but it does not containa ny of my words at all, or even that it it has no=
 words
in it whatsoever (e.g. if someone has started to write a dictionary but o=
nly
got as far as the title page).

le vlacku na'e vasru piso'e lei mi valsi
that-which-I term dictionary does-something-other-than-contain many-of
the-mass-of-that-which-I-term my words

means that I assert the existence of something that I call a dictionary, =
and
that it contains something (presumably words) but many of my words are no=
t
included in it.

Presumably a simpler way to say this would be:

mo'a lei mi valsi se vasru le vlacku

co'o mi'e robin.