From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Apr 03 10:10:21 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_5); 3 Apr 2003 18:10:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 37287 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2003 18:10:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Apr 2003 18:10:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Apr 2003 18:10:20 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 1919AJ-0003k5-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 03 Apr 2003 10:10:19 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1919A7-0003jj-00; Thu, 03 Apr 2003 10:10:07 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 03 Apr 2003 10:10:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19199y-0003jT-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 03 Apr 2003 10:09:58 -0800 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:09:58 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Jbovlaste formatting Message-ID: <20030403180958.GT15380@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <1049203317.3e8992752c8f6@imapwww.epfl.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1049203317.3e8992752c8f6@imapwww.epfl.ch> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-archive-position: 4717 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 03:21:57PM +0200, gregory.dyke@epfl.ch wrote: > How do we go about making jbovlaste as unified as possible? And > how do we "cooperate" on this cooperative quest? I've asked people that a number of times, and gotten very little response. > 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. Actually, I think I entered it by hand. > 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. Uhh, OK. > 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 I'd say put in a comment. > 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. I was being more explicit. I think more explicit is better. > 4) Should all english verbs have a "to" in front (robin created > "exit" and "to exit")? "exit" is a noun, "to exit" is a verb. And yes, I think so. 8) > 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?) Neither of those are nouns, actually. The noun is "exit in the sense of door for leaving"; see http://www.lojban.org/jbovlaste/natlang/en/exit And actually, exit in the sense of leave was entered by arj and is currently un-used, so it should be ignored completely. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u crepu le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi