Re: [lojban] What is the source of gismu *definitions*?

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

On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:55:17 PM UTC+4, lojbab wrote:
> la gleki wrote:
> > jbovlaste is fine. The main problem with e.g. computer terminology is
> > that there should be one style while creating those terms.
>
> Why?
>
> There are no stylistic rules for Lojban.
>
> > if e.g. "log in" is {co'a se jaspu} and "log out" {co'u pilno lo jaspu}
> > then there is something wrong.
>
> not necessarily.
>
> It merely means that whoever conceived the two words/expressions (which 
> may or may not have been the same person) did not happen to conceive of 
> their relationship in the systematic dichotomy that is implied by those 
> two English phrases.
>
> I note that alternative English phrases "log on" and "log off" are also 
> used, and I have no doubt that there are people who "log in" and "log 
> off", while still others "gain access" and "log off".
>
> > jbovlaste will turn into a mess.
>
> Language semantics is messy, in this sense, so we would expect any 
> dictionary to be a mess.
>
> > When we decide on the only style for most computer terms then
>
> ... people will ignore that style.
>
> In particular, >I< will ignore that style.  One of the few things I 
> still actively do with Lojban is to think of alternative ways to say 
> things, not seeking the ONE TRUE WAY, but simply a different way.

I completely agree. Then you can say that i created that list in order to sort words by styles, not to find one style.

It'd be strange to see in one lojbanised app {co'a se jaspu} in one GUI element and {co'u pilno lo jaspu} in another element.

Use either {co'a/co'u se jaspu} or {co'a/co'u pilno lo jaspu} or what aionys just suggested but don't mix them.

 

> And there is no plan for byfy to decide stylistics, and no one else has 
> the authority to decide anything about the language design, so "we" will 
> not decide on "the only style".

Sure. Otherwise it wouldn't be a live language.

 

> It was never intended that there be only one formally approved term for 
> a given semantic concept.

I understand that. Surprisingly many people think that lojban is not only syntactical unambiguous.

Even Wikipedia and the CLL lie in that regard a bit.

 

>   If technical people in one field or project 
> want to pragmatically restrict themselves to a jargon subset of the 
> language vocabulary for purposes of rigor, that is their choice, but the 
> rest of us will not be so-limited.
>
>
> > we'll add themand any spreadsheet temporary lists will be removed.
>
> I have no idea how the concept "spreadsheet temporary lists" fits jbovlaste.
>
> ANYONE can add words to jbovlaste, so far as I know.  And they need not 
> follow any particular style.
>
> > Note that the wiki has plenty of pages with proposals for such terms
> > (not only computer terms).
> > Nobody developed them.
>
> ??? Pages don't just appear out of thin cyberspace.  Someone had to 
> write them.
>
> > And still nobody complained that those pages existed.
>
> I am sure that someone somewhere has complained about them.  EVERYTHING 
> gets complained about at some point. zo'o
>
> But I have no problem with them.
>
> > If there is really strong rejection of spreadsheet lists and nobody
> > gonna add such terms into jbovlaste (I really don't know how
>
> I don't know how to use jbovlaste either, or any other online Lojban 
> tool.  I don't think in terms of online tools, and forever procrastinate 
> on learning to use them.  (If I used a cell phone, which I don't, I 
> likely wouldn't use apps either).

^ ^ I think most lojbanists should think of that. Where were computers when Pāṇini and Zamenhof were creating their projects ? (Sanksrit and Esperanto for those who don't know these names).

 

> But those who want to add to that particular dictionary need to learn 
> how to do so.  If they don't, then their words might not get added.
>
> > then I'll finish the list myself anyway and
> > present it just here in mriste.If still nobody is interested then i'll
> > just start using it myself without asking anyone to check the list.
>
> That is perfectly acceptable, and indeed somewhat preferable for jargon.
>
> Lists of jargon will always be specific to a particular field or 
> application, and won't be understood/used correctly by those not 
> involved in that field or application.  But of the words are in 
> jbovlaste, people will presume that they are usable.  And they likely 
> won't use them with the semantic precision that a jargonist would expect.
>
> Even more likely, slightly different fields might use the same jargon 
> word with slightly different semantic intent.  I suspect that the 
> definitions of specific computer jargon has somewhat different meaning 
> to a _javascript_ programmer than to someone like me who last 
> significantly programmed in TurboPascal some 15-20 years ago (I've done 
> a couple of short macros in Excel since then, but no real programming).
>
> lojbab
> -- 
> Bob LeChevalier    loj...@lojban.org    www.lojban.org
> President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.

-- 
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/-/3qUquUaZlEoJ.
 
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.