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

["Adam D. Lopresto" <lojban-out@lojban.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.
>
> 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?

I'd much prefer the form with places marked explicitly.  Makes it much easier
if you're using only a subset of the places, or if you want to write it out of
order ("x_3=b_2 is a moan/sigh/wail of agony/anguish/distress, emitted by
x_1=d_1=b_1 and provoked by x_2=d_2").

> 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) ?

"x_1" is easiest.  In most cases, the lujvo will share an initial letter with
its first component, so you're going to have a lot of duplication.  And it's
more in line with the gismu definitions.
-- 
Adam Lopresto
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

Do not stare into optical mouse with remaining eye.