From araizen@newmail.net Tue Aug 06 12:26:45 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 6 Aug 2002 19:26:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 65081 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2002 19:26:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Aug 2002 19:26:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n27.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.83) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Aug 2002 19:26:44 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.186] by n27.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Aug 2002 19:26:43 -0000 Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 19:26:42 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: non-core translations Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020805225835.00abfa10@pop.east.cox.net> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1569 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "araizen" X-Originating-IP: 172.190.231.204 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=3063669 X-Yahoo-Profile: araizen la lojbab cusku di'e > I think you are misconstruing the baseline. Indeed I was. In fact, how you describe the situation, all that is really baselined is the list of actual gismu with their general meaning as set by the keyword. Everything else could theoretically be open to debate and change if a consensus is reached. I was under the impression that the whole list was baselined and would be considered the defining document for the dictionary. I think that the gismu list, as it is currently organized, consists of three parts: keyword, basic definition for logflash, longer definition with clarifications, lujvo, etc. When translating, for example, the most important thing is to get a keyword for the gismu, and then you translate the base definition, and then the additional clarification (the additional clarifications have not yet been translated into Spanish, for example, though perhaps they didn't exist when that translation was made). You could leave the current definition in place and still add clarifications which could be considered part of the baseline when the dictionary is published. (Either by adding a new clarification section, or by adding to the last clarification section with the lujvo etc.) It is well known that there are many gismu whose keyword is very misleading, and the generally accepted solution is simply to ignore the keyword and concentrate on the entire definition. If you need to change the baseline definition, you could do it with minimal damage to the long accepted definition. mu'o mi'e .adam.