As a user, I would like links to the relevant CLL page (or other webpage) that explains each word in context with its grammatical
category.* (For me, the smaller "grammar words" are a higher priority than gismu etc.)
For example, the jbovlaste description of "pu" or "zi" really only makes any sense if one has already read http://www.lojban.org/publications/reference_grammar/chapter10.html
I'm struggling trying to read real-world Lojban text because I can't understand the grammatical constructs that aren't explained well on jbovlaste. It's too difficult for me to read through
the entire CLL (and I've been discouraged by it being out-of-date) front-to-back.
Jbovlaste needs "on-demand" learning like this - to me, that's what a dictionary is for.
*Alternatively, just insert the explanation directly, but I think inserting the link should be easy to begin with.
From: Andrew <summerfallsaway@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, 14 February 2016 1:09 PM
To: lojban
Cc: Timothy Lawrence
Subject: Re: [lojban] {cukta} as a case study for why the dictionary needs clearer, more detailed entries
This email thread went quiet for a while, but it seems we haven't given up thinking about this issue. I think it would be good for current and possible future readers of this email thread to summarize outside discussions on:
- We're considering starting a GitHub to track changes and issues with the dictionary.
- la jbovlaste should perhaps be replaced, rewritten from scratch, rather than simply revise.
- And we're looking into XML-based or other formats used by linguists to encode this sort of data.
So, there's some progress. Any corrections, or other updates?
~Andrew / cemjig
On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 4:31:26 AM UTC-8, Timothy Lawrence wrote:
I believe that is clear and sensible and I agree with that direction :)
Is there a governance / task-tracking tool that the Lojban community uses for coordinating projects like this? Phabricator, Redmine, BitBucket, GitHub etc.?
mungojelly/selckiku:
you seem to be assuming that not putting words in the dictionary will
mean they don't exist.
What? To be clear, I'm certainly not trying to stop people from making up new words, nor am I trying to slow down the creation of words, if that's what you're getting at. New words are made up all the time -- we then add them to the dictionary to clarify
their meaning and to help others to learn and use those new words. I don't know what to say about supposed valsi that exist but which do not appear in the dictionary... except that if they are really part of the language, then those undefined valsi
should be defined too. How else would new people learn the full language?
Most of our discussion so far has been about whether it would be practical to actually try to update all entries in the dictionary -- or else, how best to implement such a plan. From this, I assumed that we at least generally agree that the dictionary could
do a better job explaining the full meaning of the brivla. If we agree on that much,
then we should do a better job explaining the brivla. If this were truly an impractical task, then lojban is doomed to obscurity forever. However, I would argue that updating the dictionary is perfectly doable if we can just agree that it's necessary,
and agree on how to do it.
The task of actually updating the complete dictionary would be more feasible if we first made sure that all
new words fill out our template for a more detailed brivla definition. Then we only have to worry about updating the entries that have already made it into the dictionary: a large, but finite number.
Am I being clear? Does this makes sense?
~Andrew / cemjig
On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 8:05:28 PM UTC-8, la stela selckiku wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Andrew <summerf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Probably the first step, then, should be to enforce the definition template
> for all new words. Currently, I believe, the web form for entering new lujvo
> into la jbovlaste encourages notes about the meanings of each sumti, but it
> doesn't require it. If all new words suddenly had to fill in this more
> complete template, it would assure that we have a finite number of words to
> review.
na'i
You seem to be assuming that not putting words in the dictionary will
mean they don't exist. Lojban is a living language with lots of
unrecorded words of every sort. Minimizing rather than maximizing the
words included in a dictionary would make that dictionary far less
useful to someone trying to understand the real language.
<3,
mungojelly/selckiku
--
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+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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.
|