Re: [lojban] {cukta} as a case study for why the dictionary needs clearer, more detailed entries

[selpahi <seladwa@gmx.de>]

la .cemjig. cu skuna si cusku di'e
> More broadly, I think updating the lojban dictionaries in general should
> be considered an urgently important task.

I agree wholeheartedly, and really, many of us do. (It's quite obvious 
that the gismu definitions are inadequate if one takes a close look at 
them!)

A while ago a bunch of people attempted to start an effort of reviewing 
and revising the gismu list; you can read about it here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/h6yQDGV5lQw/Z4hZeG9rBUEJ

(If you read the whole thread you will also see some of the crazier 
counter-arguments to revising the gismu)

The point is, the thing you observed with {cukta} is the same for almost 
any gismu. So there are two main problems: 1) Many gismu are 
under-formalized; 2) There are many gismu that violate common patterns.

Many of us hope that work on the gismu list will pick up again at some 
point, but nobody knows when that will be. At least now, compared to two 
years ago, BPFK has the official backing of LLG to undertake such a 
thing, so we really only need to ... just do it.

mi'e la selpa'i

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.