From lojbab@lojban.org Sat Mar 15 07:07:10 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_1); 15 Mar 2003 15:07:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 1354 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2003 15:07:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Mar 2003 15:07:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Mar 2003 15:07:00 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18uDFT-0006ug-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 07:06:59 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18uDF6-0006sk-00; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 07:06:36 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 15 Mar 2003 07:06:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from lakemtao02.cox.net ([68.1.17.243]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18uDEl-0006py-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 07:06:15 -0800 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.92.1]) by lakemtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20030315150545.LFSH6744.lakemtao02.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:05:45 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20030315092224.00abf110@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: lojbab@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:59:04 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: [lojban.org #92] Re: Your lujvo records in Jbovlaste In-Reply-To: <20030313181041.GC25165@digitalkingdom.org> References: <20030312175019.GD3482@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-archive-position: 4530 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Bob LeChevalier Reply-To: lojbab@lojban.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab At 10:10 AM 3/13/03 -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: >On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:36:46PM -0000, jjllambias2000 wrote: > > The initials convention is very useful for lujvo makers in order to > > understand how each component of the lujvo contributes to its overall > > meaning, but it does not look nice in a dictionary. > >I disagree quite a bit, actually. I like knowing where lujvo places >come from very much, and it takes up very little extra space. > >However, the dictionary output format is not fixed, and the final >arbiter, at this point, is Nick, although I'm sure Bob could overrule >him. Bob cannot overrule Nick on anything within the scope of the byfy, and Bob would not want to. It is not clear whether "the" dictionary output format is something to be decided by the byfy or by anyone at this point. byfy's job is to decide what the cmavo definitions are and the deal with change proposals affecting the baseline. "Dictionary output format" is a editor/publisher decision, and not a byfy decision (though likely if Nick decides that he wants to edit the dictionary, I suspect that the Board will give him that job too). The text of the baseline definitions will presumably be part of the dictionary output, but whether and how much other information is included and what the format is, will among other things be determined by the form of publication and its cost (i.e. page count given various options). There have been many different views over the years as to how people would like dictionary definitions to read, with no clear preference given to any of them. Before this year, I would never have contemplated that a change in format would in any way imply a baseline change, if the information was not changed. Most of my own work has been invested in the KWIC format used for English-to-Lojban definitions as in the draft dictionary files. It is not clear how that work ties into jvovlaste, which I admit that I haven't looked at. (I know that if I were editing the dictionary, my first step will be to pull whatever relevant information I need out of jvovlaste into a text file since I find myself increasingly frustrated with web-based editing interfaces. I like the power of a real editor with global change and macro capability.) I don't see a strong reason why lujvo definitions should be in the exact same format as gismu definitions. cmavo definitions will necessarily look different; lujvo have additional information (source etymology) that is not relevant to the gismu, while gismu have the word-making etymology that no other words have (and I suspect that only gismu will have the much debated "metaphorical" aspect to their definition, which I agree needs to be more clearly defined so as to rule out polysemy). lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org