Talk:BPFK Section: Text Structure Discursives

From Lojban
Revision as of 09:41, 26 January 2015 by Gleki (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Posted by arj on Sun 10 of June, 2007 19:28 GMT posts: 953 Something has gone wrong with the partitioning of cmavo into BPFK sections. I see "pau (nai)" and "bi'u (nai)" both...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Posted by arj on Sun 10 of June, 2007 19:28 GMT posts: 953 Something has gone wrong with the partitioning of cmavo into BPFK sections.

I see "pau (nai)" and "bi'u (nai)" both in this section and in BPFK Section: Discursives. There may be more.

We have top come up with some sensible partitioning before voting.

-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ I owe, I owe - so off to work I go.


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Text Structure Discursives

Posted by Anonymous on Sun 10 of June, 2007 19:44 GMT On 6/10/07, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > Something has gone wrong with the partitioning of cmavo into BPFK sections. > > I see "pau (nai)" and "bi'u (nai)" both in this section and in BPFK > Section: Discursives. There may be more.

I noticed only those two too.

> We have top come up with some sensible partitioning before voting.

In the cmavo lists they appear as UI3a, so in theory they would belong here, but since your section comes first for voting we might leave them there.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Text Structure Discursives

Posted by Anonymous on Sun 10 of June, 2007 20:14 GMT > I see "pau (nai)" and "bi'u (nai)" both in this section and in BPFK Section: Discursives.

I have now removed them from this section.

mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Text Structure Discursives

arj Posted by arj on Sun 10 of June, 2007 21:18 GMT posts: 953 Since you have "Proposed Definition" as the headline, do you intend to not write keywords for these cmavo?

-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Someone just called to say he loved you?!


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Text Structure Discursives

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 11 of June, 2007 16:02 GMT On 6/10/07, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > Since you have "Proposed Definition" as the headline, do you > intend to not write keywords for these cmavo?

I had no intentions one way or the other, actually. :-) Now I have added them.

What are the keywords for anyway? They should obviously not be part of a Lojban->English dictionary. They can be helpful in the production of an English->Lojban one, but they can't be automatically turned into one.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Text Structure Discursives

arj Posted by arj on Mon 11 of June, 2007 19:54 GMT posts: 953 On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 01:07:18PM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 6/10/07, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > >Since you have "Proposed Definition" as the headline, do you > >intend to not write keywords for these cmavo? > > I had no intentions one way or the other, actually. :-) > Now I have added them. > > What are the keywords for anyway? They should obviously not be > part of a Lojban->English dictionary. > They can be helpful in the > production of an English->Lojban one, but they can't be automatically > turned into one.

Why not?

-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Dwi'n gallu llefaru pob llinell heb atal, oherwydd does dim tafod gyda fi.


Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

Edit  Delete  Report this post	

BPFK Section: Text Structure Discursives

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 11 of June, 2007 20:20 GMT On 6/11/07, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 01:07:18PM -0300, Jorge Llambas wrote: > > > > They can be helpful in the > > production of an English->Lojban one, but they can't be automatically > > turned into one. > > Why not?

Because we wouldn't (at least I wouldn't) want an entry in an English->Lojban dictionary for "indirect question", for example.

Under the headword "what", I would expect to find both "ma" and "ma kau", with suitable explanations (as well as "ki'a", "ke'o", etc.)

Or perhaps I shouldn't have "indirect question" as the keyword for "kau", but there doesn't seem to be anything in English that will serve as a _translation_ of "kau". I can only give a description.

mu'o mi'e xorxes