[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Alice essay
I meant jvajvo like simple two-rafsi lujvo where one rafsi is from
NAhE or gasnu/binxo/rinka and similar lujvo that SHOULD NOT IMO
introduce any new meanings (lonu is in jbovlaste only for those who
don't understand that we can write cmavo one after another without
spaces; the same should be explained for jvajvo in a future CLL, I'll
probably include the unimportance of jvajvo for dictionaries into the
textbok that im writing as well).
On 12/7/13, Wuzzy <almikes@aol.com> wrote:
>> Who stops you from entering them? There is even {lonu} in jbovlaste
>> with comments for absolute noobs of what it means.
> Nobody. But I won’t enter them because I didn’t coin them. Only the
> authors of those words could know the sense they meant. If I enter the
> words, it could be in a different sense than in the text and then the
> dictionary sense would differ from the alis sense.
> That’s why I said it would be better to first write the definition of a
> lujvo and then to use it; not vice-versa.
> If one first coins a lujvo but doesn’t define it and immediately uses
> it, this lujvo is always in danger of being in inconsistent use.
> Sooner or later it would happen. Authors of other texts may have
> coined the same lujvo in an ad-hoc way, but in a different sense. If
> this happens, the same lujvo has de-facto different definitions.
> Writing a definition in the dictionary _after_ that happened is
> dangerous and *will* render some texts “wrong” (de jure). That’s why I
> won’t write the definition, because it just increases the risk of
> inconsistency. Only the authors could possibly know what they actually
> meant.
> This situation can not happen if one doesn’t use lujvo which nobody has
> defined before.
> Lujvo are intended to have a *single* definition. If one doesn’t want
> to write a definition, there’s always a fallback option with “za'e” or
> a tanru instead. So if the authors are not willing to write definitions
> of their own words, all they’d have to do is to convert the lujvo in
> question to tanru or to “za'e” them out. The “za'e” approach has a big
> benefit, if one of the authors decided to write down a definition of
> the word in the sense it was used in the alis text, the “za'e” of the
> lujvo in question can be removed. “za'e” would also work for fu'ivla.
> There was an argument against “za'e” because it is considered ugly. I
> consider this argument a rather weak one. My point was about clariy, not
> beauty. ;-)
>
>
> And what does “lonu” have to do with this? I am only talking about lujvo
> and fu'ivla, not about cmavo clusters.
>
> --
> Wuzzy
> XMPP: Wuzzy2@jabber.ccc.de
> E-Mail: wuzzy2@mail.ru
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.