Subject: [lojban] Jbovlaste formatting

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:21:57 +0200

How do we go about making jbovlaste as unified as possible? And how do we
"cooperate" on this cooperative quest?

Take the entry barkla:

http://www.lojban.org/jbovlaste/dict/barkla

This was recorded from noralujvo (I expect) and then Robin tried to make it more
sensible.

1) there is no point in removing klama2=bartu1 because this would give a synonym
for the better barli'u so I wrote a new definition.

2) Robin got his k_2 and b_1 mixed up with k_3 and b_2, so his definition was
not quite right. If this had been the only problem, should I put a comment
(which apparently gets mailed to robin) or write my own definition with just the
correct x_?'s

3) Do we want our lujvo to be defined:

k1 goes out to k2=b1 which is outside of k3=b2 by route k4 with means of
transport k5

or

x1=k1 goes out to x2=k2=b1 etc.

I thought we only put the x_?'s in when we had decided to reorder stuff.

4) Should all english verbs have a "to" in front (robin created "exit" and "to
exit")? 

5)how should exit the verb be separated from exit the noun? we currently have:

exit in the sense of leave
exit in the sense of an action

and I was thinking of having either:

exit; action
exit; verb

(how does this work when we don't have a convenient synonym?)

mi'e greg
mu'o