WikiDiscuss

---

>
> I believe very strongly that anything must be deducable from
> the meanings of the components. Lojban should be as idiom-free
> as possible; preferably completely idiom-free.

I agree. I don't know if we can achieve that (conservative
forces are strong, and some idioms are very entrenched) but
we certainly should aim for that goal.

> > ... Whether or not they are listed as separate entries is up to
> > the dictionary editor.
>
> Creating authoritative dictionary entries for cmavo is the
> responsibility of the BPFK. Therefore, it is we who have to
> decide. And we should decide now, so that BAI sections can be
> as uniform as possible.

I'm not sure the BPFK should be that concerned with the
presentation format. The content of the definitions is
really what matters.

....
> Not having separate dictionary entries for regularly derivable
> cmavo compounds is also theoretically more orderly, since there
> is a risk that the user sees a separate dictionary entry as
> implicating an idiomatic meaning.

Also, there is the question of which compounds to include.
Why would {ki'u nai} be there but {bau nai} not, for example.
So I tend to agree with you, but I don't think it matters much
one way or the other. A compromise might be to make the entries
separate but mark them as sub-entries of a head word. That way
when the dictionary is published it can be decided how best
to present them.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com