Re: [Llg-members] A story of "Search %s" string in Vivaldi browser

[guskant]

2015-12-20 7:09 GMT+00:00 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> 2015-12-18 14:37 GMT+03:00 Ilmen <ilmen....@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> On 18/12/2015 09:23, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
>>>
>>> When I was translating Vivaldi browser interface to Lojban I aimed at the
>>> full translation of 100% of strings, which ended in Lojban being added to
>>> Vivaldi beta version while Esperanto and Ido got removed due to incomplete
>>> translations.
>>>
>>> However, I faced one string that I couldn't unambiguously translate. The
>>> string is
>>> "Search" and the browser uses that to form a placeholder in the browser
>>> search inputbox to form "Search Google", "Search Bing" and similar.
>>>
>>> And what I found is that Lojban presents no solutions.
>>> 1. I used {sisku sepi'o la'oi} => {sisku sepi'o la'oi Google}. The
>>> experimental cmavo {la'oi} quotes one word that must not contain spaces of
>>> pauses inside. Hence, its immediate drawback. Users can add a search engine
>>> leading to {sisku sepi'o la'oi Lojban MediaWiki} where "MediaWiki" hangs in
>>> space.
>>> 2. Neither {la'o zoi.XXX.zoi} method is fine. A search engine named
>>> ".zoi" leads to {la'o zoi..zoi.zoi} quoting an empty string and the last
>>> ".zoi" hangs in space. The browser is not able to change "zoi" separators on
>>> the fly.
>>> 3. However, the solution in English is unambiguous. It's a user interface
>>> widget, kinda {lu ... li'u} quoted text.
>>>
>>> widget (inputbox) boundaries are analogous to this {lu ... li'u}.
>>>
>>> This text can't refer to anything outside it, it's a thing in itself but
>>> this thing can be parsed and used by external mechanisms.
>>>
>>> "Search Lojban MediaWiki" means that after "Search " we have an arbitrary
>>> plain text in an unknown language until End Of Feed is reached.
>>>
>>> I imagine Lojban community could extend {la} to be able to catch
>>> non-Lojban text until the end of file/feed is reached.
>>>
>>> But in the current conditions I see it as a drawback of the language.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe this should be discussed on the BPFK mailing list rather than here.
>
>
> Missed that sentence.
> Yes and no.
>
> Technically Lojban has a solution (la'o zoi ... zoi with changing delimiters
> when needed).
> But then comes a part not dependent on the language.
> I initially posted a message about my translation
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/da6VUtMDDLE/discussion
>
> saying "Feedback is more than welcomed."
>
> However, no such feedback has ever been provided in the mailing list.
>
> If someone disagrees with the localization or wants to suggest something
> the correct algorithm is
> TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK
>
> like Ilmen just did.
>
> The same applies to other projects where I'm asking for help. If a help or
> feedback is requested then it's needed!
> Don't hesitate to reply to such requests!
>

I'm sorry for not providing feedback there, but it's because the
problem of {la'oi} in the search box is too indifferent for me to post
a message. The problem became however important after I found your
intolerance of my experimental parsers: it was a turning point that
you became my eternal enemy. It is lucky of you to be my enemy because
I will make more effort than before to report your faults.

Anyway, the current topic is out of subject of LLG meeting. I suggest
continuing it on the main list if necessary.


> By the way I have already implemented Ilmen's proposal with {ti} + {fa'o}.
> It should come to Vivaldi technical releases in a few weeks. Just feel free
> to update it regularly.
>
>>
>> If the string to be translated is of the form "... %s ..." (with %s
>> standing for the name of the search engine), then I think something like
>> {la'o cirlrbri. %s .cirlrbri} does pretty good (with some separator word
>> that'd be very unlikely to clash with the name of the browser, unless this
>> latter one is chosen intentionally to clash with the separator).
>>
>> Another option could be using something like « sisku se pi'o lo se cmene
>> be ti → fa'o %s » or « sisku se pi'o lo se cmene be lo se lidne be dei fa'o
>> %s ».
>>
>> —Ilmen.
>>


I prefer « sisku se pi'o lo se cmene be lo se lidne be dei fa'o %s »
among Ilmen's solutions. Gleki may be misunderstanding {dei} of it if
he think it contains a problem. However,
« sisku fa'o %s »
is my best preference from a point of view of shortness.

mu'o mi'e la guskant

[Gleki Arxokuna]

{la'oi} is roughly as good as {la'o zoi ... zoi} in the conditions given.

I'm completely surprised that pure technical issues taking place beyond Lojbanistan are thought to be related to something inside.

 

The problem became however important after I found your
intolerance of my experimental parsers: it was a turning point that
you became my eternal enemy.

I'm intolerant to everything beyond CLL. Even my unofficial parsers are merely a playtoy, a tool to study Lojban, not to break it.

Changing Lojban is breaking its community which already happened once in 2004.

It's a pity that the current Lojban is probably irreversibly incompatible with CLL, I only have to accept that and perceive as if the language is starting from scratch. But I of course can't accept if this is going to happen on a regular basis. That's why my intolerance over even more backward incompatible changes.

It is lucky of you to be my enemy because
I will make more effort than before to report your faults.

Anyway, the current topic is out of subject of LLG meeting. I suggest
continuing it on the main list if necessary.


> By the way I have already implemented Ilmen's proposal with {ti} + {fa'o}.
> It should come to Vivaldi technical releases in a few weeks. Just feel free
> to update it regularly.
>
>>
>> If the string to be translated is of the form "... %s ..." (with %s
>> standing for the name of the search engine), then I think something like
>> {la'o cirlrbri. %s .cirlrbri} does pretty good (with some separator word
>> that'd be very unlikely to clash with the name of the browser, unless this
>> latter one is chosen intentionally to clash with the separator).
>>
>> Another option could be using something like « sisku se pi'o lo se cmene
>> be ti → fa'o %s » or « sisku se pi'o lo se cmene be lo se lidne be dei fa'o
>> %s ».
>>
>> —Ilmen.
>>


I prefer « sisku se pi'o lo se cmene be lo se lidne be dei fa'o %s »
among Ilmen's solutions. Gleki may be misunderstanding {dei} of it if
he think it contains a problem.

Oh my. I had just chosen the first option and shortened it so that the name of search engine could still be visible.

 

However,
« sisku fa'o %s »
is my best preference from a point of view of shortness.

Fixed to that. Given that you are interested in localization of browsers then 

maybe you can join localization team and at least proofread the whole list of localization strings?

I stopped begging Lojbanists for such things long ago.

But maybe it's simply a misunderstanding that someone can control the whole process of localizing this browser?

You may join via here.

https://www.transifex.com/vivaldi-browser/

I also made a rough copy of the whole set of localization strings but it lacks context which is sometimes necessary.

So I strongly suggest using Transifex instead (it has "discussions" functionality for each localization string).

 

mu'o mi'e la guskant

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[guskant]

Teaching {la'oi} in your course and abusing a statement in NU clause: what a double standard of you! It's you who broke so-called Lojbanistan by expelling me. 

https://mw.lojban.org/papri/The_egocentrism_of_a_Lojban_community

 

[Gleki Arxokuna]

1. I didn't expel you. I'm just documenting what people are using. As I said I perceive the situation as starting the language from scratch. But when some person says "let's drop this usage" it's breaking communication. 

2. Am I supposed not to teach {la'oi}? Then how one would understand what this {la'oi} means?

3. People are using {la'oi}. I don't understand how {la'oi} breaks CLL. This particle is backward compatible. What problems are you having with it? I can only see that for you {la'oi} is not neutral towards Polynesian languages. But we already know that Lojban is not neutral. Why are you accusing me of teaching it? The little blame gets all the blame? The same as before. If one does nothing 'ey can't be blaimed. Is this what is desired?

4. I don't understand what does mean "abusing a statement in NU clause"? Using {nu} where {du'u} is to be used? It's from xorxe's Alice. If there is some underformalization going on I don't have time to resolve it when everything is working anyways.

[jacfold...@gmail.com]

Le dimanche 20 décembre 2015 10:13:29 UTC, la gleki a écrit :

2015-12-20 12:32 GMT+03:00 guskant <gusni...@gmail.com>:

Le dimanche 20 décembre 2015 08:57:23 UTC, la gleki a écrit :

 

I'm intolerant to everything beyond CLL. Even my unofficial parsers are merely a playtoy, a tool to study Lojban, not to break it.

Changing Lojban is breaking its community which already happened once in 2004.

It's a pity that the current Lojban is probably irreversibly incompatible with CLL, I only have to accept that and perceive as if the language is starting from scratch. But I of course can't accept if this is going to happen on a regular basis. That's why my intolerance over even more backward incompatible changes.

Teaching {la'oi} in your course and abusing a statement in NU clause: what a double standard of you! It's you who broke so-called Lojbanistan by expelling me. 

https://mw.lojban.org/papri/The_egocentrism_of_a_Lojban_community

1. I didn't expel you. I'm just documenting what people are using. As I said I perceive the situation as starting the language from scratch. But when some person says "let's drop this usage" it's breaking communication. 

You did. See the proof in the page of URL above.

 

2. Am I supposed not to teach {la'oi}? Then how one would understand what this {la'oi} means?

Simply teach that it's not Lojban. Even doing it, the learner will find it in jbovlaste, and understand the usage.

 

3. People are using {la'oi}. I don't understand how {la'oi} breaks CLL. This particle is backward compatible. What problems are you having with it? I can only see that for you {la'oi} is not neutral towards Polynesian languages. But we already know that Lojban is not neutral. Why are you accusing me of teaching it? The little blame gets all the blame? The same as before. If one does nothing 'ey can't be blaimed. Is this what is desired?

It breaks CLL 1.1 by forcing learners cultural non-neutrality. As for the correctness of CLL, use bpfk list:

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/5_SDz58KJAw/discussion

 

4. I don't understand what does mean "abusing a statement in NU clause"? Using {nu} where {du'u} is to be used? It's from xorxe's Alice. If there is some underformalization going on I don't have time to resolve it when everything is working anyways.

No, I simply meant syntactic form "NU statement (KEI)", which require some KEI non-elidible more than camxes. You abused also my parser parses differently from camxes as follows:

([{ro BOI} {mo <ge mo (¹gi mo¹) GIhI>} KU] VAU) 

([{<ro BOI> mo KU} {cu <ge mo (¹gi mo¹) GIhI> VAU}] IAU) 

([{<ro BOI> mo KU} {ge <cu (¹mo VAU¹)> <gi (¹CU [mo VAU]¹)> GIhI}] IAU) 

You did then said "ja'o lo guskanbau cu banzu frica lo jbobau", which implies that you expelled me from so-called Lojbanistan.

You didn't mention that your parser for your course "camxes-exp" parses cmevla as tanru unit: it is already backward incompatible to camxes. It is another evidence of your double standard.

[guskant]

Le dimanche 20 décembre 2015 10:55:32 UTC, jacfold...@gmail.com a écrit :

It breaks CLL 1.1 by forcing learners cultural non-neutrality. As for the correctness of CLL, use bpfk list:

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/5_SDz58KJAw/discussion

 

I meant CLL Chapter 1 Section 1, not the version number.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2015-12-20 13:55 GMT+03:00 <jacfold...@gmail.com>:

Le dimanche 20 décembre 2015 10:13:29 UTC, la gleki a écrit :

2015-12-20 12:32 GMT+03:00 guskant <gusni...@gmail.com>:

Le dimanche 20 décembre 2015 08:57:23 UTC, la gleki a écrit :

 

I'm intolerant to everything beyond CLL. Even my unofficial parsers are merely a playtoy, a tool to study Lojban, not to break it.

Changing Lojban is breaking its community which already happened once in 2004.

It's a pity that the current Lojban is probably irreversibly incompatible with CLL, I only have to accept that and perceive as if the language is starting from scratch. But I of course can't accept if this is going to happen on a regular basis. That's why my intolerance over even more backward incompatible changes.

Teaching {la'oi} in your course and abusing a statement in NU clause: what a double standard of you! It's you who broke so-called Lojbanistan by expelling me. 

https://mw.lojban.org/papri/The_egocentrism_of_a_Lojban_community

1. I didn't expel you. I'm just documenting what people are using. As I said I perceive the situation as starting the language from scratch. But when some person says "let's drop this usage" it's breaking communication. 

You did. See the proof in the page of URL above.

I don't understand that page, sorry. At all :( Don't understand reasoning, just nothing. You may try discussing it with other people. 

 

2. Am I supposed not to teach {la'oi}? Then how one would understand what this {la'oi} means?

Simply teach that it's not Lojban. Even doing it, the learner will find it in jbovlaste, and understand the usage.

Definition in jbovlaste are usually cryptic and the website currently lacks satisfactory tools to show examples.

Maybe instead add a notice that {la'oi} is ...  I don't know what adjective to use so that it can suit you. "not mainstream", "used by some people"? The section already has the section "usage is problematic".

Also I not precisely explained how my course is to be used. So I clarified the very first paragraph explaining the algorithm of using the course. To use one is supposed to provide feedback. Other usage is not approved.

I understand that readers in past could understand this course as a still finalized book despite warnings that it was a draft.

 

 

3. People are using {la'oi}. I don't understand how {la'oi} breaks CLL. This particle is backward compatible. What problems are you having with it? I can only see that for you {la'oi} is not neutral towards Polynesian languages. But we already know that Lojban is not neutral. Why are you accusing me of teaching it? The little blame gets all the blame? The same as before. If one does nothing 'ey can't be blaimed. Is this what is desired?

It breaks CLL 1.1 by forcing learners cultural non-neutrality. As for the correctness of CLL, use bpfk list:

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/5_SDz58KJAw/discussion

 

4. I don't understand what does mean "abusing a statement in NU clause"? Using {nu} where {du'u} is to be used? It's from xorxe's Alice. If there is some underformalization going on I don't have time to resolve it when everything is working anyways.

No, I simply meant syntactic form "NU statement (KEI)", which require some KEI non-elidible more than camxes. You abused also my parser parses differently from camxes as follows:

([{ro BOI} {mo <ge mo (¹gi mo¹) GIhI>} KU] VAU) 

([{<ro BOI> mo KU} {cu <ge mo (¹gi mo¹) GIhI> VAU}] IAU) 

([{<ro BOI> mo KU} {ge <cu (¹mo VAU¹)> <gi (¹CU [mo VAU]¹)> GIhI}] IAU) 

You did then said "ja'o lo guskanbau cu banzu frica lo jbobau", which implies that you expelled me from so-called Lojbanistan.

Oh, hm. Now I see. But that reasoning also implies that I expelled myself too .o'u.

 

You didn't mention that your parser for your course "camxes-exp" parses cmevla as tanru unit: it is already backward incompatible to camxes. It is another evidence of your double standard.

Indeed, it's a mistake to be corrected. I will change to a better parser in future but currently I lack free time. It's not double standard. I simply can't do the work for everyone.

 

I also wish you sent feedback directly to me as the course asks, not collect some evidence as my own opinion.

I'm only a collector and a teacher, not a designer of languages.

[guskant]

Le dimanche 20 décembre 2015 11:12:28 UTC, la gleki a écrit :

2015-12-20 13:55 GMT+03:00 <jacfold...@gmail.com>:

Le dimanche 20 décembre 2015 10:13:29 UTC, la gleki a écrit :

2015-12-20 12:32 GMT+03:00 guskant <gusni...@gmail.com>:

Le dimanche 20 décembre 2015 08:57:23 UTC, la gleki a écrit :

 

I'm intolerant to everything beyond CLL. Even my unofficial parsers are merely a playtoy, a tool to study Lojban, not to break it.

Changing Lojban is breaking its community which already happened once in 2004.

It's a pity that the current Lojban is probably irreversibly incompatible with CLL, I only have to accept that and perceive as if the language is starting from scratch. But I of course can't accept if this is going to happen on a regular basis. That's why my intolerance over even more backward incompatible changes.

Teaching {la'oi} in your course and abusing a statement in NU clause: what a double standard of you! It's you who broke so-called Lojbanistan by expelling me. 

https://mw.lojban.org/papri/The_egocentrism_of_a_Lojban_community

1. I didn't expel you. I'm just documenting what people are using. As I said I perceive the situation as starting the language from scratch. But when some person says "let's drop this usage" it's breaking communication. 

You did. See the proof in the page of URL above.

I don't understand that page, sorry. At all :( Don't understand reasoning, just nothing. You may try discussing it with other people. 

 

2. Am I supposed not to teach {la'oi}? Then how one would understand what this {la'oi} means?

Simply teach that it's not Lojban. Even doing it, the learner will find it in jbovlaste, and understand the usage.

Definition in jbovlaste are usually cryptic and the website currently lacks satisfactory tools to show examples.

Maybe instead add a notice that {la'oi} is ...  I don't know what adjective to use so that it can suit you. "not mainstream", "used by some people"? The section already has the section "usage is problematic".

Also I not precisely explained how my course is to be used. So I clarified the very first paragraph explaining the algorithm of using the course. To use one is supposed to provide feedback. Other usage is not approved.

I understand that readers in past could understand this course as a still finalized book despite warnings that it was a draft.

 It's rather desirable that definition in jbovlaste is cryptic, and the examples are not very reachable. New learners would avoid using {la'oi}, or supporters of {la'oi} would give a learnable non-official page of {la'oi}. Both are out of teacher's mission.

 

 

3. People are using {la'oi}. I don't understand how {la'oi} breaks CLL. This particle is backward compatible. What problems are you having with it? I can only see that for you {la'oi} is not neutral towards Polynesian languages. But we already know that Lojban is not neutral. Why are you accusing me of teaching it? The little blame gets all the blame? The same as before. If one does nothing 'ey can't be blaimed. Is this what is desired?

It breaks CLL 1.1 by forcing learners cultural non-neutrality. As for the correctness of CLL, use bpfk list:

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/5_SDz58KJAw/discussion

 

4. I don't understand what does mean "abusing a statement in NU clause"? Using {nu} where {du'u} is to be used? It's from xorxe's Alice. If there is some underformalization going on I don't have time to resolve it when everything is working anyways.

No, I simply meant syntactic form "NU statement (KEI)", which require some KEI non-elidible more than camxes. You abused also my parser parses differently from camxes as follows:

([{ro BOI} {mo <ge mo (¹gi mo¹) GIhI>} KU] VAU) 

([{<ro BOI> mo KU} {cu <ge mo (¹gi mo¹) GIhI> VAU}] IAU) 

([{<ro BOI> mo KU} {ge <cu (¹mo VAU¹)> <gi (¹CU [mo VAU]¹)> GIhI}] IAU) 

You did then said "ja'o lo guskanbau cu banzu frica lo jbobau", which implies that you expelled me from so-called Lojbanistan.

Oh, hm. Now I see. But that reasoning also implies that I expelled myself too .o'u.

You don't understand the proof. You speak IRC dialects,  then it does not imply that you expelled yourself. Why don't you follow a primary course of Logic before teaching Lojban?

 

 

You didn't mention that your parser for your course "camxes-exp" parses cmevla as tanru unit: it is already backward incompatible to camxes. It is another evidence of your double standard.

Indeed, it's a mistake to be corrected. I will change to a better parser in future but currently I lack free time. It's not double standard. I simply can't do the work for everyone.

 

I also wish you sent feedback directly to me as the course asks, not collect some evidence as my own opinion.

I'm only a collector and a teacher, not a designer of languages.

You are also an expeller of me and a de-selector of un-pleasant-to-you features. 

I recommend you not to teach any new features before admitted by BPFK. Don't collect the unofficial features but obey BPFK. It is reasonable if you add new features after admission of BPFK. 

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2015-12-20 14:45 GMT+03:00 guskant <gusni...@gmail.com>:

Le dimanche 20 décembre 2015 11:12:28 UTC, la gleki a écrit :

2015-12-20 13:55 GMT+03:00 <jacfold...@gmail.com>:

Le dimanche 20 décembre 2015 10:13:29 UTC, la gleki a écrit :

2015-12-20 12:32 GMT+03:00 guskant <gusni...@gmail.com>:

Le dimanche 20 décembre 2015 08:57:23 UTC, la gleki a écrit :

 

I'm intolerant to everything beyond CLL. Even my unofficial parsers are merely a playtoy, a tool to study Lojban, not to break it.

Changing Lojban is breaking its community which already happened once in 2004.

It's a pity that the current Lojban is probably irreversibly incompatible with CLL, I only have to accept that and perceive as if the language is starting from scratch. But I of course can't accept if this is going to happen on a regular basis. That's why my intolerance over even more backward incompatible changes.

Teaching {la'oi} in your course and abusing a statement in NU clause: what a double standard of you! It's you who broke so-called Lojbanistan by expelling me. 

https://mw.lojban.org/papri/The_egocentrism_of_a_Lojban_community

1. I didn't expel you. I'm just documenting what people are using. As I said I perceive the situation as starting the language from scratch. But when some person says "let's drop this usage" it's breaking communication. 

You did. See the proof in the page of URL above.

I don't understand that page, sorry. At all :( Don't understand reasoning, just nothing. You may try discussing it with other people. 

 

2. Am I supposed not to teach {la'oi}? Then how one would understand what this {la'oi} means?

Simply teach that it's not Lojban. Even doing it, the learner will find it in jbovlaste, and understand the usage.

Definition in jbovlaste are usually cryptic and the website currently lacks satisfactory tools to show examples.

Maybe instead add a notice that {la'oi} is ...  I don't know what adjective to use so that it can suit you. "not mainstream", "used by some people"? The section already has the section "usage is problematic".

Also I not precisely explained how my course is to be used. So I clarified the very first paragraph explaining the algorithm of using the course. To use one is supposed to provide feedback. Other usage is not approved.

I understand that readers in past could understand this course as a still finalized book despite warnings that it was a draft.

 It's rather desirable that definition in jbovlaste is cryptic, and the examples are not very reachable. New learners would avoid using {la'oi}, or supporters of {la'oi} would give a learnable non-official page of {la'oi}. Both are out of teacher's mission.

So I'll then add it to the dictionary in the appendix.

 

 

 

3. People are using {la'oi}. I don't understand how {la'oi} breaks CLL. This particle is backward compatible. What problems are you having with it? I can only see that for you {la'oi} is not neutral towards Polynesian languages. But we already know that Lojban is not neutral. Why are you accusing me of teaching it? The little blame gets all the blame? The same as before. If one does nothing 'ey can't be blaimed. Is this what is desired?

It breaks CLL 1.1 by forcing learners cultural non-neutrality. As for the correctness of CLL, use bpfk list:

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bpfk-list/5_SDz58KJAw/discussion

 

4. I don't understand what does mean "abusing a statement in NU clause"? Using {nu} where {du'u} is to be used? It's from xorxe's Alice. If there is some underformalization going on I don't have time to resolve it when everything is working anyways.

No, I simply meant syntactic form "NU statement (KEI)", which require some KEI non-elidible more than camxes. You abused also my parser parses differently from camxes as follows:

([{ro BOI} {mo <ge mo (¹gi mo¹) GIhI>} KU] VAU) 

([{<ro BOI> mo KU} {cu <ge mo (¹gi mo¹) GIhI> VAU}] IAU) 

([{<ro BOI> mo KU} {ge <cu (¹mo VAU¹)> <gi (¹CU [mo VAU]¹)> GIhI}] IAU) 

You did then said "ja'o lo guskanbau cu banzu frica lo jbobau", which implies that you expelled me from so-called Lojbanistan.

Oh, hm. Now I see. But that reasoning also implies that I expelled myself too .o'u.

You don't understand the proof. You speak IRC dialects,  then it does not imply that you expelled yourself.

I mean I wrote parsers with the grammar different from the one in the CLL appendix.

 

Why don't you follow a primary course of Logic before teaching Lojban?

The same reason why I, not more proficient people worked on mw.lojban.org wiki from the beginning.

Because no one else simply volunteers.

 

 

You didn't mention that your parser for your course "camxes-exp" parses cmevla as tanru unit: it is already backward incompatible to camxes. It is another evidence of your double standard.

Indeed, it's a mistake to be corrected. I will change to a better parser in future but currently I lack free time. It's not double standard. I simply can't do the work for everyone.

 

I also wish you sent feedback directly to me as the course asks, not collect some evidence as my own opinion.

I'm only a collector and a teacher, not a designer of languages.

You are also an expeller of me and a de-selector of un-pleasant-to-you features. 

I can't comment on this. I don't know what you are talking about.

As before, if you think a project isn't moving forward you are free to start your own project.

Provide alternatives!

I recommend you not to teach any new features before admitted by BPFK. Don't collect the unofficial features but obey BPFK. It is reasonable if you add new features after admission of BPFK. 

ok

[guskant]

I simply listed up examples of your unfairness. You don't need to comment on this.

[la gleki]

One more example is another string

/Search "$1" on $2/

E.g. /Search for "Vivaldi" on Google/.

Needless to say, we don't have two {fa'o}. zoi...zoi have problems mentioned earlier.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[guskant]

Le mercredi 3 février 2016 06:55:24 UTC, la gleki a écrit :

One more example is another string

/Search "$1" on $2/

E.g. /Search for "Vivaldi" on Google/.

Needless to say, we don't have two {fa'o}. zoi...zoi have problems mentioned earlier.

We can still use {fa'o} by

sisku di'e sepi'o la'e de'e fa'o $1 $2

though I prefer simplifying it by

sisku fa'o $1 ($2)

[guskant]

Precisely speaking, {sisku} is not much suitable for search engine. {zvafa'i} may be better in general.