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.?
From: loj...@googlegroups.com <loj...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Andrew <summerf...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 January 2016 2:37 PM
To: lojban
Subject: Re: [lojban] {cukta} as a case study for why the dictionary needs clearer, more detailed entriesmungojelly/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 .