criteria for the dictionary

[jongausib]

If there's someday is going to be a complete, official lojban dictionary, I think there's a need for some criteria for what jbovlaste should contain and in which form.

Right now the dictionary is rather finite, but with more contributors it could expand to an extreme extent.
I think it's a good idea to discuss this issue now, so I don't contribute with a lot of valsi now, and then a few years later someone delete a lot of my work, because they don't fit into some future official template or list of criteria.

Vocabulary
1. Should we try to add lujvo for all places of each gismu as distinct valsi, like {seldri}, {selbai}, {terni'i} etc?

2. What kind of cmene/cmevla should be added? (with no restriction this set could be extremely large)

For example, we could add recommendation that you only should add cmene that could be regarded as having a lexicographical value, like the most common names of persons, companies, geographical entities etc. Not the name of the street where you are living and shit like that.

3. What kind of fu'ivla should be added?

With ALL names of species and chemical substances and other large sets, we are going to have a very huge dictionary.
I've been trying to translate some names of species into lujvo (the solution I prefer), but the latin names are often not very descriptive and/or logical, so I think one of the better solution (at least for names of species etc, you use relative often) is to just lojbanize the latin names into fu'ivla.

You'll probably already discussed this a lot, but it would be nice to have some guidelines documented somewhere about standards. I believe lojban standards about biology, chemistry, music theory and other scientific disciplines, doesn't belong to the official grammar of lojban (as little as Oxford style manual is normative for ALL kind of English language), but still it would be nice to have such guidelines (on a level below the official language). Especially jbovlaste need such guidelines if we don't want to have an inconsistent dictionary with a dukse of words in a possible future.

4. When is it ok to add a stage-4 fui'vla in the dictionary?

I know some lojbanist don't like stage-3 fu'ivla. I do like stage-3. The prefix in the stage-3 fu'ivla help you understand a little what this foreign word is about. And you could make distinctions easily between for example {spatrvanila}, {grutrvanila} "vanilla pod", {tsijrvanila} "vanilla seed" and {xukmrvanila} vanillin.

The only stage-4 fu'ivla I add are those which are very cultural specific, not easily constructed as a lujvo and/or which doesn't easily fit into some cathegory. Stage-4 fu'ivla should also be useful. CLL says: "[stage-4] are used where a fu'ivla has become so common or so important that it must be made as short as possible."

But as long as you don't add stage-4 without cause (what's the cause of making {konjaku} a stage-4 for example? I've never heard of this species before), I think those fu'ivlas could really give a good flavor to the language, even if this at the same time means that we're going to learn a lot of inconsistent words just like learning natlangs. But stage-4 fu'ivlas could be really cool, my favourites are {iklki} and {fi'ikca}.

Form
I think jbovlaste should have a consistent format before publishing a printed version. Some poor fellow would therefore have to read through all jbovlaste and edit it into a consistent format just before printing. But if we would have guidelines from now on already, and we all add valsi in the same way, there are going to be less work for someone in the future.

1. Form of definition
Which format do you think should be standard?

{nerkla}:
a. n₁=k₁ enters n₂=k₂ from origin k₃ via route k₄ using means/vehicle k₅

b.x1=n₁=k₁ enters x2=n₂=k₂ from origin x3=k₃ via route x4=k₄ using means/vehicle x5=k₅

c. x1 enters x2 from origin x3 via route x4 using means/vehicle x5

2. Etymology
I suggest that we don't add etymology info in the notes, but use the "add etymology"-link in jbovlaste.

I think etymology should be mandatory for cmevla and fu'ivla, so you can discuss which language to borrow from.
This is a paranthetical but important question if lojban has ambition to be as cultural neutral as possible.
So one recommendation could be that you always use latin for names of species, the language most related to the specific cultural phenomena/object (or a derivate of languages if many cultures share the same phenomena/object, or in that case maybe esperanto).

3. How much info in the notes?

And also a final question: Is it possible for a user to edit another user's notes in jbovlaste, to add info?

4. Experimental gismu/cmavo
I think that's BPFK job to consider if these words ever are going to be official. How does the procedure looks like for this?

mu'omi'e jongausib

[Sebastian Fröjd]

Here's a link to my project of translating latin names of plants into lojban. Please contribute!
Sorry for a lot of swedish comments in the document. It was meant only as private notes from the beginning, but I now think it's better to publish it on internet like gleki did with his projects.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_nLFjv5QIE9YTZ5MU9pM2lpUkU/edit

mu'omi'e jongausib

2013/1/14 jongausib <so.co...@gmail.com>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/5yhXyYpO5eYJ.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Sebastian Fröjd]

wrong format. So here a link that works:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvnLFjv5QIE9dE1IM3lQMkk3LTNzbVJ2UEVmamdzeEE

2013/1/14 Sebastian Fröjd <so.co...@gmail.com>

[v4hn]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 04:55:12AM -0800, jongausib wrote:
> Right now the dictionary is rather finite, but with more contributors it
> could expand to an extreme extent.
> I think it's a good idea to discuss this issue now, so I don't contribute
> with a lot of valsi now, and then a few years later someone delete a lot of
> my work, because they don't fit into some future official template or list
> of criteria.

This attitude is probably _the_ main reason why there is so few content.

Start contributing, discuss specific things with people on IRC and on the mriste.
Don't start more meta discussions. There are enough already, few people read
them, even fewer comment on them and the one person who has authority (besides
actual usage of lojban in the community) to make decisions (Robin)
will most likely not read mails that long.

If your contributions are usable and (rather) sane and people use them,
things will most likely not get deleted, for there is no reason to do so.

Didn't read any further.


v4hn

[la gleki]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 5:26:26 PM UTC+4, jongausib wrote:

wrong format. So here a link that works:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvnLFjv5QIE9dE1IM3lQMkk3LTNzbVJ2UEVmamdzeEE

Although I prefer everything to be stored in one place I linked your doc in "Lojban berries". However, we can't edit your file.

Does it mean it's gonna be an authoring work? If so it's ok. Crowd-sourcing projects being not well-thought can soon turn the project into a mess becuse of different opinions of the authors.

[la gleki]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 4:55:12 PM UTC+4, jongausib wrote:

If there's someday is going to be a complete, official lojban dictionary, I think there's a need for some criteria for what jbovlaste should contain and in which form.

Right now the dictionary is rather finite, but with more contributors it could expand to an extreme extent.
I think it's a good idea to discuss this issue now, so I don't contribute with a lot of valsi now, and then a few years later someone delete a lot of my work, because they don't fit into some future official template or list of criteria.

Vocabulary
1. Should we try to add lujvo for all places of each gismu as distinct valsi, like {seldri}, {selbai}, {terni'i} etc?

2. What kind of cmene/cmevla should be added? (with no restriction this set could be extremely large)

For example, we could add recommendation that you only should add cmene that could be regarded as having a lexicographical value, like the most common names of persons, companies, geographical entities etc. Not the name of the street where you are living and shit like that.

3. What kind of fu'ivla should be added?

With ALL names of species and chemical substances and other large sets, we are going to have a very huge dictionary.
I've been trying to translate some names of species into lujvo (the solution I prefer)

I know two guys who are against anything that is non-jvajvo.

 

, but the latin names are often not very descriptive and/or logical, so I think one of the better solution (at least for names of species etc, you use relative often) is to just lojbanize the latin names into fu'ivla.

You'll probably already discussed this a lot, but it would be nice to have some guidelines documented somewhere about standards. I believe lojban standards about biology, chemistry, music theory and other scientific disciplines, doesn't belong to the official grammar of lojban (as little as Oxford style manual is normative for ALL kind of English language), but still it would be nice to have such guidelines (on a level below the official language). Especially jbovlaste need such guidelines if we don't want to have an inconsistent dictionary with a dukse of words in a possible future.

.ie CLL 2.0 must have guidelines of lojbanising Latin names. An algorithm (like the one we have for gismu) would be an ideal solution.

4. When is it ok to add a stage-4 fui'vla in the dictionary?

I know some lojbanist don't like stage-3 fu'ivla. I do like stage-3. The prefix in the stage-3 fu'ivla help you understand a little what this foreign word is about. And you could make distinctions easily between for example {spatrvanila}, {grutrvanila} "vanilla pod", {tsijrvanila} "vanilla seed" and {xukmrvanila} vanillin.

The best stage3 fu'ivla are fu'ivla that allow dropping their prefix with the resulting word still being grammatical.

[.arpis.]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 7:55 AM, jongausib <so.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

If there's someday is going to be a complete, official lojban dictionary, I think there's a need for some criteria for what jbovlaste should contain and in which form.

Right now the dictionary is rather finite, but with more contributors it could expand to an extreme extent.
I think it's a good idea to discuss this issue now, so I don't contribute with a lot of valsi now, and then a few years later someone delete a lot of my work, because they don't fit into some future official template or list of criteria.

Vocabulary
1. Should we try to add lujvo for all places of each gismu as distinct valsi, like {seldri}, {selbai}, {terni'i} etc?

Absolutely not. Ideally, there would be a {filjvo} algorithm and list that covers those, so that a print dictionary would not have them and a digital dictionary could look them up on the fly. The prefix and suffix forms could be listed in the print dictionary for ease of use.

2. What kind of cmene/cmevla should be added? (with no restriction this set could be extremely large)

None. A separate cmevla dictionary could exist, but that would be more descriptive than prescriptive.

For example, we could add recommendation that you only should add cmene that could be regarded as having a lexicographical value, like the most common names of persons, companies, geographical entities etc. Not the name of the street where you are living and shit like that.

3. What kind of fu'ivla should be added?

Common stage 3 fu'ivla; ideally not many. A separate fu'ivla dictionary, also descriptive could be useful.

With ALL names of species and chemical substances and other large sets, we are going to have a very huge dictionary.
I've been trying to translate some names of species into lujvo (the solution I prefer), but the latin names are often not very descriptive and/or logical, so I think one of the better solution (at least for names of species etc, you use relative often) is to just lojbanize the latin names into fu'ivla.

You'll probably already discussed this a lot, but it would be nice to have some guidelines documented somewhere about standards. I believe lojban standards about biology, chemistry, music theory and other scientific disciplines, doesn't belong to the official grammar of lojban (as little as Oxford style manual is normative for ALL kind of English language), but still it would be nice to have such guidelines (on a level below the official language). Especially jbovlaste need such guidelines if we don't want to have an inconsistent dictionary with a dukse of words in a possible future.

4. When is it ok to add a stage-4 fui'vla in the dictionary?

When the same people who can okay an experimental gismu say so; ideally they would do so with more leniency than with gismu, but it should still be an official and regulated process.

I know some lojbanist don't like stage-3 fu'ivla. I do like stage-3. The prefix in the stage-3 fu'ivla help you understand a little what this foreign word is about. And you could make distinctions easily between for example {spatrvanila}, {grutrvanila} "vanilla pod", {tsijrvanila} "vanilla seed" and {xukmrvanila} vanillin.

The only stage-4 fu'ivla I add are those which are very cultural specific, not easily constructed as a lujvo and/or which doesn't easily fit into some cathegory. Stage-4 fu'ivla should also be useful. CLL says: "[stage-4] are used where a fu'ivla has become so common or so important that it must be made as short as possible."

But as long as you don't add stage-4 without cause (what's the cause of making {konjaku} a stage-4 for example? I've never heard of this species before), I think those fu'ivlas could really give a good flavor to the language, even if this at the same time means that we're going to learn a lot of inconsistent words just like learning natlangs. But stage-4 fu'ivlas could be really cool, my favourites are {iklki} and {fi'ikca}.

Form
I think jbovlaste should have a consistent format before publishing a printed version. Some poor fellow would therefore have to read through all jbovlaste and edit it into a consistent format just before printing. But if we would have guidelines from now on already, and we all add valsi in the same way, there are going to be less work for someone in the future.

1. Form of definition
Which format do you think should be standard?

{nerkla}:
a. n₁=k₁ enters n₂=k₂ from origin k₃ via route k₄ using means/vehicle k₅

b.x1=n₁=k₁ enters x2=n₂=k₂ from origin x3=k₃ via route x4=k₄ using means/vehicle x5=k₅

c. x1 enters x2 from origin x3 via route x4 using means/vehicle x5

I like b.

2. Etymology
I suggest that we don't add etymology info in the notes, but use the "add etymology"-link in jbovlaste.

I think etymology should be mandatory for cmevla and fu'ivla, so you can discuss which language to borrow from.
This is a paranthetical but important question if lojban has ambition to be as cultural neutral as possible.
So one recommendation could be that you always use latin for names of species, the language most related to the specific cultural phenomena/object (or a derivate of languages if many cultures share the same phenomena/object, or in that case maybe esperanto).

3. How much info in the notes?

And also a final question: Is it possible for a user to edit another user's notes in jbovlaste, to add info?

4. Experimental gismu/cmavo
I think that's BPFK job to consider if these words ever are going to be official. How does the procedure looks like for this?

mu'omi'e jongausib

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/5yhXyYpO5eYJ.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

I view a standard lojban dictionary almost like a formal protocol, which many people will (whether we like it or not) expand upon with informal ones (fu'ivla, names, etc.). A descriptive documentation of the informal ones would be nice, but a prescription on the set of standard words and meanings you are allowed to use if you want every lojbanist to understand you is {pe'i} consistent with the goals of lojban.

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

[la gleki]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 8:07:56 PM UTC+4, .arpis. wrote:

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 7:55 AM, jongausib <so.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

If there's someday is going to be a complete, official lojban dictionary, I think there's a need for some criteria for what jbovlaste should contain and in which form.

Right now the dictionary is rather finite, but with more contributors it could expand to an extreme extent.
I think it's a good idea to discuss this issue now, so I don't contribute with a lot of valsi now, and then a few years later someone delete a lot of my work, because they don't fit into some future official template or list of criteria.

Vocabulary
1. Should we try to add lujvo for all places of each gismu as distinct valsi, like {seldri}, {selbai}, {terni'i} etc?

Absolutely not. Ideally, there would be a {filjvo} algorithm and list that covers those, so that a print dictionary would not have them and a digital dictionary could look them up on the fly. The prefix and suffix forms could be listed in the print dictionary for ease of use.

2. What kind of cmene/cmevla should be added? (with no restriction this set could be extremely large)

None. A separate cmevla dictionary could exist, but that would be more descriptive than prescriptive.

.ie we have wikipedia for that.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 04:55:12 jongausib wrote:
> If there's someday is going to be a complete, official lojban dictionary, I
> think there's a need for some criteria for what jbovlaste should contain
> and in which form.
>
> Right now the dictionary is rather finite, but with more contributors it
> could expand to an extreme extent.
> I think it's a good idea to discuss this issue now, so I don't contribute
> with a lot of valsi now, and then a few years later someone delete a lot of
> my work, because they don't fit into some future official template or list
> of criteria.
>

> *Vocabulary*

> 1. Should we try to add lujvo for all places of each gismu as distinct
> valsi, like {seldri}, {selbai}, {terni'i} etc?

Only if they are glossed as different words, such as "tervecnu". We don't need
lots of entries for "species of <animal>".

> 2. What kind of cmene/cmevla should be added? (with no restriction this set
> could be extremely large)

Names of countries, cities, oblasti, cantons, etc.
Names of diseases.
Names of well-known people (including Lojbanists who are well-known among
Lojbanists but may not be well-known to the world).
Given names (there may be more than one form of a given name).
Probably some others. I just added "relcibjolmib", a few days after hearing la
.camgusmis. talk about it (in English).

A few names can't be entered because they're two or more words (e.g.
"kot.divuár").

> For example, we could add recommendation that you only should add cmene
> that could be regarded as having a lexicographical value, like the most
> common names of persons, companies, geographical entities etc. Not the name
> of the street where you are living and shit like that.
>
> 3. What kind of fu'ivla should be added?
>
> With ALL names of species and chemical substances and other large sets, we
> are going to have a very huge dictionary.
> I've been trying to translate some names of species into lujvo (the
> solution I prefer), but the latin names are often not very descriptive
> and/or logical, so I think one of the better solution (at least for names
> of species etc, you use relative often) is to just lojbanize the latin
> names into fu'ivla.
>
> You'll probably already discussed this a lot, but it would be nice to have
> some guidelines documented somewhere about standards. I believe lojban
> standards about biology, chemistry, music theory and other scientific
> disciplines, doesn't belong to the official grammar of lojban (as little as
> Oxford style manual is normative for ALL kind of English language), but
> still it would be nice to have such guidelines (on a level below the
> official language). Especially jbovlaste need such guidelines if we don't
> want to have an inconsistent dictionary with a dukse of words in a possible
> future.

You'll have trouble entering many species names, because they're at least
three words, such as "cionmau la barda" or "maxri la .durum.". Go for genera
and up. But don't try to enter every single genus of fish until there are
Lojbanic ichthylogists who would need to use them. I've added a few such as
"skomberu".

Languages and ethnicities: there are only a few thousand of these, so entering
a few hundred wouldn't overload the dictionary. I'd enter "pintupi" (which
I've mentioned) and maybe "olkola" (which is a valid fu'ivla), but not
"Oykangand" (a language closely related to Olkola) until someone figured out
the right way to Lojbanize it.

Chemicals: we need to figure out the proper way to Lojbanize IUPAC before
entering IUPAC lujvo. Simple-named chemicals, such as geosmin (derpanxu'i) or
capsaicin (xumrkapsiku), can be entered already. 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-di(4-
chlorophenyl)ethane will have to wait. Numbers are used three ways in chemical
names (the other is to indicate an oxidation state or valency), and we have
just the one set of numbers to use in lujvo. I've proposed some experimental
gismu for use in chemical names, such as "xudvu" (aldehyde).

> 4. When is it ok to add a stage-4 fui'vla in the dictionary?
>
> I know some lojbanist don't like stage-3 fu'ivla. I do like stage-3. The
> prefix in the stage-3 fu'ivla help you understand a little what this
> foreign word is about. And you could make distinctions easily between for
> example {spatrvanila}, {grutrvanila} "vanilla pod", {tsijrvanila} "vanilla
> seed" and {xukmrvanila} vanillin.
>
> The only stage-4 fu'ivla I add are those which are very cultural specific,
> not easily constructed as a lujvo and/or which doesn't easily fit into some
> cathegory. Stage-4 fu'ivla should also be useful. CLL says: "[stage-4] are
> used where a fu'ivla has become so common or so important that it must be
> made as short as possible."
>
> But as long as you don't add stage-4 without cause (what's the cause of
> making {konjaku} a stage-4 for example? I've never heard of this species
> before), I think those fu'ivlas could really give a good flavor to the
> language, even if this at the same time means that we're going to learn a
> lot of inconsistent words just like learning natlangs. But stage-4 fu'ivlas
> could be really cool, my favourites are {iklki} and {fi'ikca}.

Konjac is a common ingredient in Japanese cuisine.

For words that fit into the type-4 format without too much squishing, I don't
see anything wrong with using type 4 to begin with, except where the type-4
could easily be interpreted as two unrelated things. For instance, I wouldn't
use the word "malpigi", as it could equally well mean acerola (rutrmalpigi) or
an insect's excretory organ (ragrmalpigi), both named for Marcello Malpighi.
This turned out to happen with "konjaku" (someone thought it's cognac, which
is koinka), but I didn't find out until after I entered it, as I was thinking
of the Japanese word, which is unrelated to the French word.

I think "tcigaso" should be used as type-4 already. Most people with cars use
it.

> *Form*

> I think jbovlaste should have a consistent format before publishing a
> printed version. Some poor fellow would therefore have to read through all
> jbovlaste and edit it into a consistent format just before printing. But if
> we would have guidelines from now on already, and we all add valsi in the
> same way, there are going to be less work for someone in the future.
>
> 1. Form of definition
> Which format do you think should be standard?
>
> {nerkla}:
> a. n1=k1 enters n2=k2 from origin k3 via route k4 using means/vehicle k5
>
> b.x1=n1=k1 enters x2=n2=k2 from origin x3=k3 via route x4=k4 using
> means/vehicle x5=k5
>
> c. x1 enters x2 from origin x3 via route x4 using means/vehicle x5

a for lujvo where the arguments are in order, b where they are not in order, c
for fu'ivla.

> 2. Etymology
> I suggest that we don't add etymology info in the notes, but use the "add
> etymology"-link in jbovlaste.

I agree. That's what it's there for.

> I think etymology should be mandatory for cmevla and fu'ivla, so you can
> discuss which language to borrow from.
> This is a paranthetical but important question if lojban has ambition to be
> as cultural neutral as possible.
> So one recommendation could be that you always use latin for names of
> species, the language most related to the specific cultural
> phenomena/object (or a derivate of languages if many cultures share the
> same phenomena/object, or in that case maybe esperanto).

I wouldn't always use Latin for species. "skomberu", "polgosu", "sperlanu",
"merlanu", and "merluci" are all from Greek, Latin, or some descendant thereof
(though "sperlanu" has a Germanic root), but for the capelin, an important
forage fish that circles Iceland, I picked the Icelandic word as a source.

> 3. How much info in the notes?
>
> And also a final question: Is it possible for a user to edit another user's
> notes in jbovlaste, to add info?

It is possible for one user to edit another's definition, but should be done
sparingly. Jbovlaste isn't Wiktionary.

Speaking of Wiktionary, there are Wiktionaries in English, French, Lojban, and
other languages. The English Wiktionary, for any modern language (including
Lojban), requires that three different people agree on a word at least a year
ago, or it appear in some well-known work. The Lojban Wiktionary doesn't, and
the French Wiktionary accepts Tsolyani words, which the English Wiktionary
doesn't. You can enter phrases like "lo xamgu ko li'i" in Wiktionary, but not
jbovlaste.

Pierre
--
La sal en el mar es más que en la sangre.
Le sel dans la mer est plus que dans le sang.

[Sebastian Fröjd]

Sure, I will try to contribute but first I would like to know the frames. What to do and don't, and in what form. And consistency is a good thing in my opinion.
Secondly I don't have a lot of time to read through all maillist either, so probably the wheel is being invented many times over and over again. I tried to read backwards through the maillist once, but I soon give up, and the BPFK section is good but incomplete.

With a better forum (like wordpress or similar) organised in separate topics, it would be easier to find the information you're looking for, and then it would also be a shorter way to start contributing (well you can contribute anyway ofcourse, but I think you do a better work when you're familiar with the discussions).

So with little time to read all mails, my strategy is simply to write down all of my questions/propositions in the same mail and learn from the response I get. Sorry for that. But still, if no one read "mail that long" does that mean all proposals must be short? Or is it even possible for someone non-BPFK to come with proposals?

2013/1/14 v4hn <m...@v4hn.de>

[Sebastian Fröjd]

You should be able to edit it.

Try this:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvnLFjv5QIE9dDBWYlJJUTdaTnRiVnpyTmtyRUllTVE

2013/1/14 la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/NujKsrjkuoMJ.

[Sebastian Fröjd]

2013/1/14 la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>

On Monday, January 14, 2013 4:55:12 PM UTC+4, jongausib wrote:

If there's someday is going to be a complete, official lojban dictionary, I think there's a need for some criteria for what jbovlaste should contain and in which form.

Right now the dictionary is rather finite, but with more contributors it could expand to an extreme extent.
I think it's a good idea to discuss this issue now, so I don't contribute with a lot of valsi now, and then a few years later someone delete a lot of my work, because they don't fit into some future official template or list of criteria.

Vocabulary
1. Should we try to add lujvo for all places of each gismu as distinct valsi, like {seldri}, {selbai}, {terni'i} etc?

2. What kind of cmene/cmevla should be added? (with no restriction this set could be extremely large)

For example, we could add recommendation that you only should add cmene that could be regarded as having a lexicographical value, like the most common names of persons, companies, geographical entities etc. Not the name of the street where you are living and shit like that.

3. What kind of fu'ivla should be added?

With ALL names of species and chemical substances and other large sets, we are going to have a very huge dictionary.
I've been trying to translate some names of species into lujvo (the solution I prefer)

I know two guys who are against anything that is non-jvajvo.

 

, but the latin names are often not very descriptive and/or logical, so I think one of the better solution (at least for names of species etc, you use relative often) is to just lojbanize the latin names into fu'ivla.

You'll probably already discussed this a lot, but it would be nice to have some guidelines documented somewhere about standards. I believe lojban standards about biology, chemistry, music theory and other scientific disciplines, doesn't belong to the official grammar of lojban (as little as Oxford style manual is normative for ALL kind of English language), but still it would be nice to have such guidelines (on a level below the official language). Especially jbovlaste need such guidelines if we don't want to have an inconsistent dictionary with a dukse of words in a possible future.

.ie CLL 2.0 must have guidelines of lojbanising Latin names. An algorithm (like the one we have for gismu) would be an ideal solution.

.iesai Doesn't sound so difficult really. Why not having an algorithm translating IPA to lojban for all languages, so for every phone (phonetics) you translate it into the most lojbanic phonematic counterpart?

4. When is it ok to add a stage-4 fui'vla in the dictionary?

I know some lojbanist don't like stage-3 fu'ivla. I do like stage-3. The prefix in the stage-3 fu'ivla help you understand a little what this foreign word is about. And you could make distinctions easily between for example {spatrvanila}, {grutrvanila} "vanilla pod", {tsijrvanila} "vanilla seed" and {xukmrvanila} vanillin.

The best stage3 fu'ivla are fu'ivla that allow dropping their prefix with the resulting word still being grammatical.

The only stage-4 fu'ivla I add are those which are very cultural specific, not easily constructed as a lujvo and/or which doesn't easily fit into some cathegory. Stage-4 fu'ivla should also be useful. CLL says: "[stage-4] are used where a fu'ivla has become so common or so important that it must be made as short as possible."

But as long as you don't add stage-4 without cause (what's the cause of making {konjaku} a stage-4 for example? I've never heard of this species before), I think those fu'ivlas could really give a good flavor to the language, even if this at the same time means that we're going to learn a lot of inconsistent words just like learning natlangs. But stage-4 fu'ivlas could be really cool, my favourites are {iklki} and {fi'ikca}.

Form
I think jbovlaste should have a consistent format before publishing a printed version. Some poor fellow would therefore have to read through all jbovlaste and edit it into a consistent format just before printing. But if we would have guidelines from now on already, and we all add valsi in the same way, there are going to be less work for someone in the future.

1. Form of definition
Which format do you think should be standard?

{nerkla}:
a. n₁=k₁ enters n₂=k₂ from origin k₃ via route k₄ using means/vehicle k₅

b.x1=n₁=k₁ enters x2=n₂=k₂ from origin x3=k₃ via route x4=k₄ using means/vehicle x5=k₅

c. x1 enters x2 from origin x3 via route x4 using means/vehicle x5

2. Etymology
I suggest that we don't add etymology info in the notes, but use the "add etymology"-link in jbovlaste.

I think etymology should be mandatory for cmevla and fu'ivla, so you can discuss which language to borrow from.
This is a paranthetical but important question if lojban has ambition to be as cultural neutral as possible.
So one recommendation could be that you always use latin for names of species, the language most related to the specific cultural phenomena/object (or a derivate of languages if many cultures share the same phenomena/object, or in that case maybe esperanto).

3. How much info in the notes?

And also a final question: Is it possible for a user to edit another user's notes in jbovlaste, to add info?

4. Experimental gismu/cmavo
I think that's BPFK job to consider if these words ever are going to be official. How does the procedure looks like for this?

mu'omi'e jongausib

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/q1A1agoy5koJ.

[Sebastian Fröjd]

2013/1/14 Pierre Abbat <ph...@bezitopo.org>

Hm.. why not add a new cathegory called "cmene cluster" for names consisting of more than one word?

I've been wondering about IUPAC-terminology and lojban. Wouldn't it be possible to use lojban features as {joi}, {ke}, {xi}, {mei} within the rules of the IUPAC system somehow to have lujvos like   1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-di(4-chlorophenyl)ethane ?

> 4. When is it ok to add a stage-4 fui'vla in the dictionary?
>
> I know some lojbanist don't like stage-3 fu'ivla. I do like stage-3. The
> prefix in the stage-3 fu'ivla help you understand a little what this
> foreign word is about. And you could make distinctions easily between for
> example {spatrvanila}, {grutrvanila} "vanilla pod", {tsijrvanila} "vanilla
> seed" and {xukmrvanila} vanillin.
>
> The only stage-4 fu'ivla I add are those which are very cultural specific,
> not easily constructed as a lujvo and/or which doesn't easily fit into some
> cathegory. Stage-4 fu'ivla should also be useful. CLL says: "[stage-4] are
> used where a fu'ivla has become so common or so important that it must be
> made as short as possible."
>
> But as long as you don't add stage-4 without cause (what's the cause of
> making {konjaku} a stage-4 for example? I've never heard of this species
> before), I think those fu'ivlas could really give a good flavor to the
> language, even if this at the same time means that we're going to learn a
> lot of inconsistent words just like learning natlangs. But stage-4 fu'ivlas
> could be really cool, my favourites are {iklki} and {fi'ikca}.

Konjac is a common ingredient in Japanese cuisine. Ok, then I add se'emla. Common pastry in Sweden.

Sounds like a good rule.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 23:03:21 Sebastian Fröjd wrote:
> .iesai Doesn't sound so difficult really. Why not having an algorithm
> translating IPA to lojban for all languages, so for every phone (phonetics)
> you translate it into the most lojbanic phonematic counterpart?

You're going to run into serious problems with languages like these:
Hmong. It has seven tones, syllables begin with consonant clusters like "npl"
and "qh", and there are no consonants at the ends of syllables (though some
vowels are nasal, which could be transliterated as "n").
Khoisan languages and Bantu languages that have borrowed clicks from them.
Ubykh and other northern Caucasian languages, which have huge consonant
inventories.
Georgian. Some consonant clusters violate Lojban phonotactics several times.

Pierre
--
gau do li'i co'e kei do

[Michael Goerner]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:55:02PM +0100, Sebastian Fröjd wrote:
> It would also be a shorter way to start contributing (well you can

> contribute anyway ofcourse, but I think you do a better work when you're
> familiar with the discussions).

I agree, the way in which information is presented in the community
isn't really compatible with newcomers contributing.
However, I'm quite sure you wouldn't be the first one trying to implement
a "working" platform that would quickly become as "useless", in this regards,
as the rest.

> But still, if no one read "mail that long"
> does that mean all proposals must be short? Or is it even possible for
> someone non-BPFK to come with proposals?

What do you mean by "proposals"?

One of the last discussions recently made clear, that _there should not
be any proposals_ at the moment. None will be accepted or rejected officially.
They will, however, be ignored by most(if not all) of the people in the bpfk.
Take a look at glekis many tries to convince yourself.

If you really want to contribute to the language, either help fixing the CLL
or write (formally very strict) proposals for cmavo definitions for the byfy.
Before that part is done, you wouldn't even know, what exactly you
would like to change, because there is no reference stating what is the case
right now!


v4hn

[v4hn]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:03:21PM +0100, Sebastian Fröjd wrote:
> 2013/1/14 la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com>

> > .ie CLL 2.0 must have guidelines of lojbanising Latin names. An algorithm
> > (like the one we have for gismu) would be an ideal solution.

That "must" is surely your opinion.
Also CLL 2.0 seems to be your favorite keyword for every change
_you_ would ever like to see happen. Over the last year you more
or less proposed a complete rewrite.

> .iesai Doesn't sound so difficult really. Why not having an algorithm
> translating IPA to lojban for all languages, so for every phone (phonetics)
> you translate it into the most lojbanic phonematic counterpart?

It's probably not as simple as this, because not every sequence of letters
is allowed in lojban. No idea if this is a problem with latin, but then,
why would you want to restrict something like that to latin?


v4hn

[Ian Johnson]

I've been wondering about IUPAC-terminology and lojban. Wouldn't it be possible to use lojban features as {joi}, {ke}, {xi}, {mei} within the rules of the IUPAC system somehow to have lujvos like   1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-di(4-chlorophenyl)ethane ?

Only with extreme pain, and a tremendous lack of extensibility (i.e. you get no simple way to say that a SN2 reaction occurs at one of the above 1-chloro positions). I highly, highly discourage this idea. Use {zoi} if need be when things are extremely jargon-dense. I admit that this stance is unsatisfying, but to be blunt IUPAC nomenclature is already unsatisfying (note the proliferation of common names despite it, even among chemists), and it's a domain-specific conlang. Expecting a general purpose conlang to do the job better and in full generality is a recipe for failure.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

[Ian Johnson]

.iesai Doesn't sound so difficult really. Why not having an algorithm translating IPA to lojban for all languages, so for every phone (phonetics) you translate it into the most lojbanic phonematic counterpart?

Lojban has a rather low number of phonemes, so there is no function mapping IPA to lojban. Also, the optimization problem for approximating sounds that Lojban doesn't have is in the general case ill-posed. Specific examples such as theta/thorn can be solved, but getting a general mapping from IPA to Lojban isn't going to happen. Nor is it going to happen with IPA to English, which has many more phonemes.

[Sebastian]

Thanks for all your response. I think I know better what to do know and how to add words.

So I agree that the IPA to lojban algorithm isn't that unproblematic after all. Anyway, this is approximately what we're doing every time we construct a new cmene, despite the loss of phonetic information in the translation process.

fe'omi'e jongausib

Skickat från min iPhone

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

[Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG]

jongausib wrote:
> If there's someday is going to be a complete, official lojban
> dictionary,

Complete? Unlikely. There will likely eventually be an official
dictionary, with words selected by some criteria by whoever is editing
said dictionary (and the criteria necessarily will have to be left to
the editor, since s/he will be responsible for checking the entries and
formatting them (if such cannot be completely automated).

> I think there's a need for some criteria for what jbovlaste
> should contain and in which form.

I have no especial fondness for jbovlaste, since I do not use online
tools very well at all. But as it is the de facto place where word
proposals are placed, if there are restrictions, then words will not be
made. And that would be a VERY BAD thing at this point and for a long
time to come.

> Right now the dictionary is rather finite, but with more contributors it
> could expand to an extreme extent.

Good.

If and when it happens, then we could establish some criteria for
selecting a subset for those who want a somewhat weeded list. But that
subset should not be considered any more "official" than any other one.

Only byfy has the power at present to make something "official", they
would set the criteria. Right now, approving words are so far down the
priority list as to make the question irrelevant.

> I think it's a good idea to discuss this issue now, so I don't
> contribute with a lot of valsi now,

Please do so, especially if you are willing to come up with place
structures.

> and then a few years later someone
> delete a lot of my work, because they don't fit into some future
> official template or list of criteria.

I doubt that such deletion would take place, though I don't run that
effort. More likely, if and when we get to a point where it is
necessary, words that are "rejected" would be left in the database, but
marked with whatever reason for exclusion. The only reason I see for
deleting an entry (and even then, I would prefer that it be kept, but
hidden from casual data base users) is if the same wordform has an
alternate definition which is preferred.

> *Vocabulary*

> 1. Should we try to add lujvo for all places of each gismu as distinct
> valsi, like {seldri}, {selbai}, {terni'i} etc?

That effort has already been done by Colin Fine and my wife several
years ago, though I am not sure that the data was added to jbovlaste. I
believe that the dictionary text file that I created years ago has them.
It is somewhere on the website.

> 2. What kind of cmene/cmevla should be added? (with no restriction this
> set could be extremely large)

Let it be large. But it might be helpful if people Lojbanizing cmene
mark their entries as to the source language.

> For example, we could add recommendation that you only should add cmene
> that could be regarded as having a lexicographical value, like the most
> common names of persons, companies, geographical entities etc. Not the
> name of the street where you are living and shit like that.

The average person is not going to be a good judge of "lexicographical
value". Personal names are personal, though if there is agreement on
how to TYPICALLY Lojbanize common names, such an entry should be marked
as being the typical form.

A name belongs in a dictionary if it is likely to be used by people
other than the person who coined it AND if the referent of the name is
important enough to be understood. The referent of someone's street
name is generally irrelevant, unless it is being used as an address, in
which case it should be expressed in the language that one would find on
a street sign or a letter - which won't be Lojban until Lojbanistan
comes into existence.

> 3. What kind of fu'ivla should be added?

Type 3 only.

Type 4 fu'ivla are premature, and too few know how to properly make and
check them.

> With ALL names of species and chemical substances and other large sets,
> we are going to have a very huge dictionary.

Good.

> I've been trying to translate some names of species into lujvo (the
> solution I prefer), but the latin names are often not very descriptive
> and/or logical, so I think one of the better solution (at least for
> names of species etc, you use relative often) is to just lojbanize the
> latin names into fu'ivla.

Pierre Abbat has done a lot of work on how to do this, though he
violates my dictum against Type 4 fu'ivla too often. But you can take
any of his Type 4s and add a prefix, in which case it is probably good.

> You'll probably already discussed this a lot,

Not officially.

> but it would be nice to have some guidelines documented somewhere about standards.

There are no official standards, and will be none for the forseeable future.

> I believe
> lojban standards about biology, chemistry, music theory and other
> scientific disciplines, doesn't belong to the official grammar of lojban
> (as little as Oxford style manual is normative for ALL kind of English
> language), but still it would be nice to have such guidelines (on a
> level below the official language).

IF they aren't official, they likely won't be noticed by people.

> Especially jbovlaste need such
> guidelines if we don't want to have an inconsistent dictionary with a
> dukse of words in a possible future.

If it happens, then the problem will be dealt with at that time.

> 4. When is it ok to add a stage-4 fui'vla in the dictionary?

Not yet.

> The only stage-4 fu'ivla I add are those which are very cultural
> specific, not easily constructed as a lujvo and/or which doesn't easily
> fit into some cathegory. Stage-4 fu'ivla should also be useful. CLL
> says: "[stage-4] are used where a fu'ivla has become so common or so
> important that it must be made as short as possible."

Yes, and there aren't nearly enough speakers to make "common" a
meaningful criterion.

Indeed, only a few *lujvo* are arguably "common", like "brivla" and
"fu'ivla"

> But as long as you don't add stage-4 without cause (what's the cause of
> making {konjaku} a stage-4 for example?

Someone who doesn't give a damn about the preferences of those who said
not to make such words, and someone who wants to NOT be understood,
especially by people like me who don't use jbovlaste and who therefore
will never have a clue what konjaku means.

> *Form*

> I think jbovlaste should have a consistent format before publishing a
> printed version.

That will be up to the editor who is doing the publishing, and whatever
tools exist at the time for automating as much as possible. That cannot
be predicted at this point.

> Some poor fellow would therefore have to read through
> all jbovlaste and edit it into a consistent format just before printing.
> But if we would have guidelines from now on already, and we all add
> valsi in the same way, there are going to be less work for someone in
> the future.

Not likely.

> 1. Form of definition
> Which format do you think should be standard?
>
> {nerkla}:

> a. n_1 =k_1 enters n_2 =k_2 from origin k_3 via route k_4 using
> means/vehicle k_5
>
> b.x1=n_1 =k_1 enters x2=n_2 =k_2 from origin x3=k_3 via route x4=k_4
> using means/vehicle x5=k_5

>
> c. x1 enters x2 from origin x3 via route x4 using means/vehicle x5

Any of them are fine. The first two show how the place structure was
derived using jvojva, which can be useful for others to learn from. A
published dictionary would likely use c), with front-matter explaining
how place structures are created, with some examples. But I suspect
that particular bit of formatting is easily automated.

> 2. Etymology
> I suggest that we don't add etymology info in the notes, but use the
> "add etymology"-link in jbovlaste.

If a feature exists in jbovlaste, it is helpful to use it. But that
presumes people know that the feature exists and how to use it. Most
Lojbanists won't.

> I think etymology should be mandatory for cmevla and fu'ivla, so you can
> discuss which language to borrow from.

It is certainly useful. "Mandatory" implies that some authority has
mandated it, and there is no such authority.

> 4. Experimental gismu/cmavo
> I think that's BPFK job to consider if these words ever are going to be
> official. How does the procedure looks like for this?

In the far future.

No such procedures are likely to even be discussed until we get past the
stage where Robin has to be a dictator in order to make progress on the
top priority of finalizing the baseline language definition.

lojbab
--
Bob LeChevalier loj...@lojban.org www.lojban.org
President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.

[Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG]

Sebastian Fröjd wrote:
> Sure, I will try to contribute but first I would like to know the
> frames. What to do and don't, and in what form. And consistency is a
> good thing in my opinion.
> Secondly I don't have a lot of time to read through all maillist either,

Nobody else does either, which is why this low priority topic is not
going to get decided.

> so probably the wheel is being invented many times over and over again.

Good. The founders had ideas on such topics, but we hardly have a
monopoly on good ideas, and it is good that we no longer have the
authority to insist on ours.

Reinventing the wheel is only a problem when the reinvention is
non-productive. Word-making is never non-productive, as long as the
word is well-formed and usefully defined. The rules for being
well-formed are in CLL (which BTW allows for experimental cmavo but not
experimental gismu. Use a fu'ivla, and if you think it is important
enough to be a gismu, THEN (and only then) consider making it a Type 4
fu'ivla, and use the experimental fu'ivla rafsi if you need to make
compounds. If new gismu are ever added, it will likely be that the most
used type-4s will be considered.).

> I tried to read backwards through the maillist once, but I soon give up,
> and the BPFK section is good but incomplete.

BPFK is working only on cmavo and CLL. Anything else is premature.

> With a better forum (like wordpress or similar) organised in separate
> topics, it would be easier to find the information you're looking for,
> and then it would also be a shorter way to start contributing (well you
> can contribute anyway ofcourse, but I think you do a better work when
> you're familiar with the discussions).

No one has time to be familiar with all of the discussions. The mailing
list is at least searchable. So is the wiki.

> So with little time to read all mails, my strategy is simply to write
> down all of my questions/propositions in the same mail and learn from
> the response I get.

Most people who could answer your questions won't read a long email.
Though marking the post with topic "several questions" might help catch
attention.

A small number of questions is more likely to get answered.

>Sorry for that. But still, if no one read "mail that
> long" does that mean all proposals must be short?

Proposals are being officially ignored, regardless of how long they are.

I think some people are adding proposals to various wiki pages in hopes
that they will someday be considered, but "someday" is still far off.

> Or is it even possible for someone non-BPFK to come with proposals?

It isn't even possible for someone *IN* BPFK to submit proposals on
topics not being addressed.

There aren't even procedures for doing so.

[Robert LeChevalier]

la gleki wrote:
> On Monday, January 14, 2013 4:55:12 PM UTC+4, jongausib wrote:
>
> I know two guys who are against anything that is non-jvajvo.

Whoopie for them. .ionai

I can probably find two guys who are against any particular proposal
that is made, without a lot of difficulty.

> .ie CLL 2.0 must have guidelines of lojbanising Latin names.

Not likely to happen, since word-making rules aren't likely to be enough
of a priority to even be considered until AFTER 2.0 is done.

> An algorithm (like the one we have for gismu) would be an ideal solution.

Anyone can make an algorithm if they want. There will be no official
consideration of such algorithms anytime soon. Document them in the
wiki or somewhere that people interested can find them. (Metatopics in
the wiki pointing to a lot of such things would probably be useful, if
they don't already exist.)

lojbab