[lojban] Re: criteria for the dictionary

[la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 4:55:12 PM UTC+4, jongausib wrote:
> If there's someday is going to be a complete, official lojban 
> dictionary, I think there's a need for some criteria for what jbovlaste 
> should contain and in which form.
>
> Right now the dictionary is rather finite, but with more contributors it could expand to an extreme extent.
> I think it's a good idea to discuss this issue now, so I don't contribute with a lot of valsi now, and then a few years later someone delete a lot of my work, because they don't fit into some future official template or list of criteria.
>
> Vocabulary
> 1. Should we try to add lujvo for all places of each gismu as distinct valsi, like {seldri}, {selbai}, {terni'i} etc?
>
> 2. What kind of cmene/cmevla should be added? (with no restriction this set could be extremely large)
>
> For example, we could add recommendation that you only should add cmene that could be regarded as having a lexicographical value, like the most common names of persons, companies, geographical entities etc. Not the name of the street where you are living and shit like that.
>
> 3. What kind of fu'ivla should be added?
>
> With ALL names of species and chemical substances and other large sets, we are going to have a very huge dictionary.
> I've been trying to translate some names of species into lujvo (the solution I prefer)

I know two guys who are against anything that is non-jvajvo.

 

> , but the latin names are often not very descriptive and/or logical, so I think one of the better solution (at least for names of species etc, you use relative often) is to just lojbanize the latin names into fu'ivla.
>
> You'll probably already discussed this a lot, but it would be nice to have some guidelines documented somewhere about standards. I believe lojban standards about biology, chemistry, music theory and other scientific disciplines, doesn't belong to the official grammar of lojban (as little as Oxford style manual is normative for ALL kind of English language), but still it would be nice to have such guidelines (on a level below the official language). Especially jbovlaste need such guidelines if we don't want to have an inconsistent dictionary with a dukse of words in a possible future.

.ie CLL 2.0 must have guidelines of lojbanising Latin names. An algorithm (like the one we have for gismu) would be an ideal solution.

> 4. When is it ok to add a stage-4 fui'vla in the dictionary?
>
> I know some lojbanist don't like stage-3 fu'ivla. I do like stage-3. The prefix in the stage-3 fu'ivla help you understand a little what this foreign word is about. And you could make distinctions easily between for example {spatrvanila}, {grutrvanila} "vanilla pod", {tsijrvanila} "vanilla seed" and {xukmrvanila} vanillin.

The best stage3 fu'ivla are fu'ivla that allow dropping their prefix with the resulting word still being grammatical.

> The only stage-4 fu'ivla I add are those which are very cultural specific, not easily constructed as a lujvo and/or which doesn't easily fit into some cathegory. Stage-4 fu'ivla should also be useful. CLL says: "[stage-4] are used where a fu'ivla has become so common or so important that it must be made as short as possible."
>
> But as long as you don't add stage-4 without cause (what's the cause of making {konjaku} a stage-4 for example? I've never heard of this species before), I think those fu'ivlas could really give a good flavor to the language, even if this at the same time means that we're going to learn a lot of inconsistent words just like learning natlangs. But stage-4 fu'ivlas could be really cool, my favourites are {iklki} and {fi'ikca}.
>
> Form
> I think jbovlaste should have a consistent format before publishing a printed version. Some poor fellow would therefore have to read through all jbovlaste and edit it into a consistent format just before printing. But if we would have guidelines from now on already, and we all add valsi in the same way, there are going to be less work for someone in the future.
>
> 1. Form of definition
> Which format do you think should be standard?
>
> {nerkla}:
> a. n1=k1 enters n2=k2 from origin k3 via route k4 using means/vehicle k5
>
> b.x1=n1=k1 enters x2=n2=k2 from origin x3=k3 via route x4=k4 using means/vehicle x5=k5
>
> c. x1 enters x2 from origin x3 via route x4 using means/vehicle x5
>
> 2. Etymology
> I suggest that we don't add etymology info in the notes, but use the "add etymology"-link in jbovlaste.
>
> I think etymology should be mandatory for cmevla and fu'ivla, so you can discuss which language to borrow from.
> This is a paranthetical but important question if lojban has ambition to be as cultural neutral as possible.
> So one recommendation could be that you always use latin for names of species, the language most related to the specific cultural phenomena/object (or a derivate of languages if many cultures share the same phenomena/object, or in that case maybe esperanto).
>
> 3. How much info in the notes?
>
> And also a final question: Is it possible for a user to edit another user's notes in jbovlaste, to add info?
>
> 4. Experimental gismu/cmavo
> I think that's BPFK job to consider if these words ever are going to be official. How does the procedure looks like for this?
>
> mu'omi'e jongausib

-- 
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/-/q1A1agoy5koJ.
 
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.