Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: cmavo index?

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 17:08:47 -0500 (EST)

On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, buzzwyrd wrote:

> --- In lojban@y..., Invent Yourself <xod@s...> wrote:
>
> > There is so much broken Lojban floating around that automatic entry
> > would be a problem. There's been lots of talk of an
> > example database, however. Search the Wiki for Dictionary stuff.
> >
>
> Personally, I think a good parser (and better yet, with a glosser) is
> very helpful to me. The machine gives objective and unrelenting
> feedback. And it could separate wheat from chaff of broken lojban.
> Examples with grammatical errors could be automatically annotated in
> the database.

There is ungrammatical Lojban, but there are also prolix, redundant,
malglico, mistaken, and culturally-incorrect Lojbans, the latter being
cases where the community decided upon a certain usage but the sentence in
question violates this oral tradition. Unfortunately for you newbies, none
of us have seen fit to compile a short, clear list of these cases, thanks
in part to laziness but also a terror of poking the hornet's nest and
triggering megabytes of rambling, bilingual arguments that usually end at
a draw. Feel free to read the list archives for a peak month to see what
I'm talking about.

In fact, several newbies have emerged during the lull in these debates,
and I won't hesitate to conclude causality from that correlation! And in
light of this, I am going to post my recent insight into the nature of
"ni" on jboske (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jboske/) instead of here.

-- 
The tao that can be tar(1)ed
is not the entire Tao.
The path that can be specified
is not the Full Path.