[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] CLL 1.1/ CLL 2.0. What is your opinion in the current situation?
On Sunday, December 30, 2012 7:33:12 PM UTC+4, lojbab wrote:la gleki wrote:
> The other problem is that the writeups weren't in themselves usable as
> sections for CLL. They were selma'o and cmavo definitions, perhaps
> suitable for an annotated dictionary that does not exist. (To be
> accurate, the predecessor for CLL was something called the "selma'o
> catalogue, and the byfy writeups weren't all that bad as submissions to
> such a catalog. But the catalog gave way to CLL, remaining only as a
> quasi-appendix "index" chapter at the end of the book. The byfy chunks
> were producing annotated selma'o catalog entries, but no one was
> turning
> those into CLL text).
>
>
> ^ ^
> That's very interesting. I'm sure CLL and the dictionary must approach
> each other.
>
> vlasisku has short links to CLL chapters mentioning them (probably from
> the index you are talking about).
I have no idea what vlasisku is.
The printed CLL has an index that is almost 10% of the length of the
book. We put a lot of work into that index, so that people can find
things easily. It worked, too. But the index is based on paper
pagination and thus doesn't port to the web, and it was specific to
Microsoft Word of the 1997 vintage (though later versions can read it),
making it all but impossible to transfer to current efforts.
> However, I can't imagine a book being a dictionary at the same time.
???
Most dictionaries in history have been books. Paper, binding, etc.
There was no real alternative until the last couple of decades.
> And a dictionary being a reference grammar.
Most good reference dictionaries INCLUDE a reference grammar, generally
in brief form in a chapter at the beginning or the end. The Lojban
reference grammar started as such a chapter intended for the dictionary,
and then grew into a full book of its own.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/grammar has one on-line form of an
English reference grammar, albeit a simplified one.
More comprehensive reference grammars typically run to several hundred
pages and catalog the exceptions to the rules along with the rules
themselves.
> I've never seen such dictionaries for any languages. Have you?
Yes. I have dictionaries for around 20 languages from the word-making days.
I have also seen (and possess) reference grammars, mostly for English,
though I have one reference grammar for Chinese recommended by Cowan,
ta'onaisai can you please explain how gimste was formed? Is it based on english semantics?
Who and how selected sumti places? Was there anybody who looked at e.g. Chinese semantics and imported concepts from there?
and a comparative reference grammar that discusses several dozen
languages in more or less the same format of 10-50 page essays.
I did a study of lexicography in the 1990s to learn how to write a
proper dictionary.
> But this is something that must be discussed further.
NOTHING "must" be discussed further.
Things must be DONE, not "discussed". Discussion is the enemy of
getting things done.
And proposing changes for discussion, as you seem to habitually do,
makes paying attention to your proposals antithetical to getting things
done.
If you mean helping with CLL 1.1 i already expressed my opinion.
As for rewriting cmavo definitions i dont understand how I can help.
Do you wish i presented a ma'oste with new definitions? what would it change?
everyone would ignore it.
Sorry for being undiplomatic.
lojbab
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/4QyNVDuTdtYJ.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.