Subject: [lojban] Re: [lojban.org #92] Re: Your lujvo records in Jbovlaste

From: Bob LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:59:04 -0500

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 [email-masked]
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