From ragnarok@pobox.com Tue Mar 11 19:46:52 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_1); 12 Mar 2003 03:46:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 94299 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2003 03:46:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Mar 2003 03:46:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Mar 2003 03:46:51 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18sxCc-0006Nf-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:46:50 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18sxCW-0006NM-00; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:46:44 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:46:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.intrex.net ([209.42.192.250]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18sxCP-0006ND-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:46:37 -0800 Received: from craig [209.42.200.67] by smtp.intrex.net (SMTPD32-7.13) id AD7E3E2C0200; Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:46:06 -0500 To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Another major jbovlaste update. Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:45:53 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <200303112220.27499.phma@webjockey.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-Declude-Sender: ragnarok@pobox.com [209.42.200.67] X-archive-position: 4441 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ragnarok@pobox.com Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "Craig" Reply-To: ragnarok@pobox.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=48763382 X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl >> > I don't think it's wrong to have "butter source" in the dictionary, >> > but a lot of the definitions of attitudinals are wrong. {ii}, for >> > instance, should not be translated "fear". It's something you say when >> > you're afraid, not something you say to talk about fear. Similarly, >> > cruelty is kamkusru, not uunai. >> >> So what would you use instead? >Hard to say, as English doesn't have much of an attitudinal system. Maybe >"cruelty;attitudinal"? Hopefully that'll keep people from using the >attitudinal to translate a noun. There are two types of people relevant here: Those who know enough Lojban to recognize that uunai is a cmavo compound and thus must be an attitudinal indicating the cruelty, and those who don't know enough Lojban to get any benefit from a jbovlaste-like system. That is to say, if you would use cmavo to translate nouns, you aren't going to be producing a good translation with jbovlaste anyway. Jbovlaste is NOT a substitute for learning the language, and should not be designed to cater to those who may use it as one.