WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Super-Section: BAI sumtcita

posts: 14214

On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 03:42:42PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Arnt Richard Johansen wrote:
> >
> > 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.

I absolutely agree.

> > > ... 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.

How's this:

As jatna, I decree that we must produce definitions for all cmavo
that currently exist in the ma'oste, unless a compelling reason to
the contrary exists.

Let's hear it for arbitrary use of power. :-)

> > 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.

Because no-one's defined {bau nai}. Once we've figured out what
BAI+NAI means, I'm going to suggest that we either universally
include it, or universally don't, depending on what we decide on.

-Robin