From rob@twcny.rr.com Sat Apr 21 15:16:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 21 Apr 2001 22:16:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 36284 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2001 22:16:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Apr 2001 22:16:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.166) by mta2 with SMTP; 21 Apr 2001 22:16:12 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f3LMDx224786 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 18:13:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.95.175.122]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 17:58:31 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 14r5OO-0000Cf-00 for ; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 17:58:12 -0400 Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 17:58:12 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: fanvyca'a Message-ID: <20010421175812.A695@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.17i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer I've found myself looking for a Lojban word for "to compile", in the computer sense. There is a lujvo for "compiler", fanvyca'a, and when I looked at the place structure to find which place is the code that is compiled, I found that there wasn't one. This strikes me as being incredibly unlojbanic. The line in the lujvo file is: fanvyca'a:fanva+cabra:translator-machine; compiler:$cabra1 $=fanva1 $fanva3 $fanva4 $cabra3 Meaning that the place structure would be something like: x1 is a compiler for translating language x2 to language x3 operated by x4 Whoever made this lujvo left no possibility of it being used to mean the verb "compile", by leaving out fanva2! Also, the person using the compiler (x4) seems rather irrelevant to the meaning of the word. Finally, 'translator-apparatus' makes me think more of Babelfish or jbofi'e than of gcc. Since 'samselpla' already refers to computer source code, it seems the most appropriate to use at least the 'selpla' part in this lujvo. (Including 'skami' in the lujvo would result in the unwieldy 'samborselplafanva'.) I propose this lujvo instead: selplafanva:se+platu+fanva:plan-translate; compile:$fanva1 $platu2 $=fanva2 $fanva3 $fanva4 x1 compiles source code x2 from language x3 to language x4 (Hmm. Can binary code be considered a language?) Then, "le selplafanva" would refer to the compiler, so there is no need for "fanvyca'a". -- Rob Speer