From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sat Aug 31 17:16:52 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 1 Sep 2002 00:16:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 94934 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2002 00:16:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Sep 2002 00:16:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-4.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.104) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Sep 2002 00:16:52 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-69-56.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.69.56]) by mailbox-4.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id A27D91D7B3 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 02:16:50 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] dictionary - which words? Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 01:18:22 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Kreig: > >I would not expect to find either "se mau" nor "semau" as an entry > >in a dictionary that lists words. > > Existing dictionaries do not list words, they list *lexemes*. I would argue > that although semau is most certainly not a word, it equally certainly is a > lexeme. It therefore ought to be in the dictionary. > > >>Further, it seems like a poor idea to try and use the dictionary to > >>correct a failing of the pedagogical process. Teach people how words > >>break apart properly, and this is a nonconcern. > > >Exactly. Then when you want to know what "semau" means you search > >under "mau" (or under "se" if that is the part you don't know). > > The problem, however, is that semau is one lexeme composed of two words, and > we might want to look up that lexeme. If I know se and mau, but I do not > know zmadu, then knowing that semau is se+mau does not tell me what it > *means*. I think you're wrong and that "semau" is not a single lexeme. But you say that you would argue that it certainly is a lexeme. On what basis would you argue that? --And.