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

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:24:19 -0500

At 10:35 PM 3/16/03 +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
>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.

...

> > 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.

It sounds like the selma'o catalog (intended to have definitions of each 
cmavo, and examples showing how they would be used in each grammatical 
usage in the formal grammar) is reborn. This of course was the thing Cowan 
started on that became the refgrammar.

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