From opoudjis@optushome.com.au Sun Mar 16 03:35:40 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: opoudjis@optushome.com.au X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_1); 16 Mar 2003 11:35:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 8492 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2003 11:35:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Mar 2003 11:35:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail015.syd.optusnet.com.au) (210.49.20.173) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Mar 2003 11:35:39 -0000 Received: from optushome.com.au (c17354.brasd1.vic.optusnet.com.au [210.49.155.214]) by mail015.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h2GBZbZ10982 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:35:37 +1100 Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:35:36 +1100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [lojban.org #92] Re: Your lujvo records in Jbovlaste To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <6814DE36-57A3-11D7-8E65-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) From: Nick Nicholas X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=90350612 X-Yahoo-Profile: opoudjis Taking a break while the Level 0 is compiling to chime in. > From: Bob LeChevalier >> 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. Bob is right that the format of the dictionary is outside the BPFK's mandate. Since I don't want the board deciding this either, clearly there will need to be someone or someones designated at some stage to make these decisions. (And a single body will need to make those decisions.) It makes a lot of sense for that body to include me; and since jbovlaste is being engineered towards producing a dictionary or dictionaries, the jbvovlaste developers should be involved too. If this can wait, I'd rather it wait; if it cannot, then I'll ask the board to call for a Dictionary Editorial committee. (The understanding is that such a committee presides over format, and over how much goes in; but it does not decide the content that goes in, that is obviously the BPFK's job.) I am very concerned that the decision making the BPFK makes *not* be constrained by the feasible size of a dictionary. Therefore, where grammatical issues will be resolved, I now think a supplement to CLL makes sense, over and above a dictionary. And the decision of what goes into which volume is by no means urgent. > 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. Inasmuch as the lujvo list was never baselined anyway, I don't think it counts as a baseline change either; but a consistent format does need to be elaborated. I'll chime in on what I think when I get a free moment already. > 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. If you look at it, of course, it might become clearer to you. ;-) Though it is hypocritical of me to say, because I have only spent a few hours with it, I proclaim unto you that it is vital for Lojbanists to play with jbovlaste now during development, to guarantee that it is usable as a platform to anchor dictionaries onto, and to forestall any catastrophes when half the word stock is already in there. > 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). This all is true. The main problem I see, though, is how to shoehorn cmavo definitions in there; they will necessarily be much more discursive, although a CLL supplement would forestall at least some of that. -- Dr Nick Nicholas, French & Italian, University of Melbourne, Australia. http://www.opoudjis.net nickn@unimelb.edu.au "Most Byzantine historians felt they knew enough to use the optatives correctly; some of them were right." --- Harry Turtledove.