From rob@twcny.rr.com Fri Jan 04 15:45:06 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 4 Jan 2002 23:45:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 7928 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2002 23:45:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Jan 2002 23:45:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout5.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.122) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Jan 2002 23:45:05 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0 [24.92.226.74]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g04Nj2q08415 for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:45:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:45:02 -0500 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16Me1G-0000SF-00 for ; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 18:45:02 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 18:45:02 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: cmavo index? Message-ID: <20020104234502.GH1109@twcny.rr.com> References: <20020104232522.GG1650@aerosol> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020104232522.GG1650@aerosol> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2572649 X-Yahoo-Profile: squeekybobo On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 06:25:23PM -0500, randl. nortmn. wrote: > On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 05:08:47PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: > [...] > > 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. > [...] > > I had been thinking this problem could be addressed, at least in part, > by having editorial review of some sort. The collaborative filtering > model comes to mind. Rather than a free-for-all, however, I'd > probably shoot for having certain registered reviewers who were > trusted to be skilled in the language, possibly with varying levels of > trust. If 20 trusted reviewers reviewed (on average) 10 usage > examples per week, and each example had to be reviewed by at least two > different reviewers to catch mistakes, we'd have 5200 doubly-reviewed > usage examples within a year. Now, whether or not there are 20 > capable and willing volunteers is another question. > > mu'omi'e randl. I'd volunteer. This sounds like a way to make significant progress in the usage of the language. -- Rob Speer