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

[Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org>]

On Sun, 9 May 2004, Robin Lee Powell wrote:

> In http://www.lojban.org/jbovlaste/help/definitions.html
> I tell people to write definitions like
>
>     d_1=b_1 bitches/whines/expresses anguish about d_2 with
>     utterance/sound(s) b_2
>
> rather than
>
>     x_2=d_1=b_1 bitches/whines/expresses anguish about x_2=d_2 with
>     utterance/sound(s) x_3=b_2
>
> I have since decided that the latter is more readable, because it lets
> the reader know at a glance how many places there are, and which place
> is where, without having to count them.

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).

> Before changing the help and asking people to change their definitions,
> I'd like to see what people on the list think.  Do you prefer one over
> the other?  If you prefer the second form, should "x_1" always be used,
> or the first letter of the lujvo, or a series of letters representing
> the lujvo ("bd_1" in the case of ba'urdu'u) ?

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.

-- 
Arnt Richard Johansen                                http://arj.nvg.org/
Jeg er nok verdens sydligste sengevæter. Forutsatt at ingen på basen på
Sydpolen driver med slikt, da.        --Erling Kagge: Alene til Sydpolen