[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban.org #92] Re: Your lujvo records in Jbovlaste
At 10:35 PM 3/16/03 +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
I am very concerned that the decision making the BPFK makes *not* be
constrained by the feasible size of a dictionary. Therefore, where
grammatical issues will be resolved, I now think a supplement to CLL
makes sense, over and above a dictionary. And the decision of what goes
into which volume is by no means urgent.
...
> I don't see a strong reason why lujvo definitions should be in the
> exact
> same format as gismu definitions. cmavo definitions will necessarily
> look
> different; lujvo have additional information (source etymology) that
> is not
> relevant to the gismu, while gismu have the word-making etymology that
> no
> other words have (and I suspect that only gismu will have the much
> debated
> "metaphorical" aspect to their definition, which I agree needs to be
> more
> clearly defined so as to rule out polysemy).
This all is true. The main problem I see, though, is how to shoehorn
cmavo definitions in there; they will necessarily be much more
discursive, although a CLL supplement would forestall at least some of
that.
It sounds like the selma'o catalog (intended to have definitions of each
cmavo, and examples showing how they would be used in each grammatical
usage in the formal grammar) is reborn. This of course was the thing Cowan
started on that became the refgrammar.
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org