Talk:BPFK Sections
Rob, you are welcome to have BY1. Just go ahead and start the page.
Permissions on here are a bit weak, so I'd appreciate it if you'd lock it when you're not using it.
Oh, and use the discuss link to make requests and such, please.
-jatna
Would it make more sense to move the definition of {ke'a} out of Grammatical Pro-sumti and into Subordinators? It just seems rather odd to have the definitions so far apart, when they're pretty meaningless without each other. Similarly for {ce'u} moving to Abstractors where it will be used. It's probably not a big problem the way it is, but it does seem like that would lead to more coherence. -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/
Computer: Tea, earl gray, hot. In a cup this time.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 03:03:46PM -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote: > Would it make more sense to move the definition of {ke'a} out of > Grammatical Pro-sumti and into Subordinators? It just seems > rather odd to have the definitions so far apart, when they're > pretty meaningless without each other.
I'd rather not break up selma'o if I can help it. Furthermore, as those two sections are being handled together (at this very moment, in fact), it doesn't much matter.
> Similarly for {ce'u} moving to Abstractors where it will be used. > It's probably not a big problem the way it is, but it does seem > like that would lead to more coherence.
Now that, on the other hand, I can do, ce'u being a selma'o un to itself.
-Robin
I have a proposal:
I would like to make a section called "Dictionary Frontspiece", which would contain those things that apply to broad categories of words that it seems silly to repeat for each definition. I'm thinking of things like the BAI discussion of nai, to'e, and so on (currently in the causals section), a brief comment about BAI gismu == BAI ku gismu, and magic word ordering issues.
Does this seem like a bad idea to anyone?
Anyone want to write it? It should just be c&p from extant sections.
-Robin
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 [email protected] wrote:
> Re: BPFK Sections > I have a proposal: > > I would like to make a section called "Dictionary Frontspiece", which would contain those things that apply to broad categories of words that it seems silly to repeat for each definition. I'm thinking of things like the BAI discussion of nai, to'e, and so on (currently in the causals section), a brief comment about BAI gismu == BAI ku gismu, and magic word ordering issues. > > Does this seem like a bad idea to anyone?
On the contrary, it seems like an exceptionally good idea that will save us a lot of work. It should be referred to in the individual entries, though. For instance, "For a thorough explanation of the commonalities of all cmavo in the class BAI, see page $foo in the preface."
> Anyone want to write it? It should just be c&p from extant sections.
I'd love to write it, but I'm not sure I have the time.
-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ The names of a species, empire, language, homeworld, homestar and so on will all be self-evidently related; Ogrons come from Ogros, Arisians come from Arisia, Arcturans come from Arcturus, and Humans no doubt come from Humus. --Justin B. Rye in A Primer In SF Xenolinguistics
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 [email protected] wrote:
> I'm thinking of things > like the BAI discussion of nai, to'e, and so on (currently in the > causals section), a brief comment about BAI gismu == BAI ku gismu, and > magic word ordering issues.
Also I BAI BO , which I now realise isn't addressed at all in the sections. It's just a stag, but I can't remember/don't know if it works the same as other stags.
-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ You Can't Have Your Kate And Edith Too.
On 5/8/05, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > Also I BAI BO , which I now realise isn't addressed at all in > the sections. It's just a stag, but I can't remember/don't know if it > works the same as other stags.
No, unfortunately the rule is not uniform for all stags.
{A iri'abo B} corresponds to {A ri'a B}, whereas {A ipubo B} corresponds to {B pu A}.
See:
mu'o mi'e xorxes
Each of these has within memory gone the other way. In any case, they are good reasons for not connecting tags too rigorously with the "corresponding" brivla.
> On 5/8/05, Arnt Richard Johansen > wrote: > > Also I BAI BO , which I now realise > isn't addressed at all in > > the sections. It's just a stag, but I can't > remember/don't know if it > > works the same as other stags. > > No, unfortunately the rule is not uniform for > all stags. > > {A iri'abo B} corresponds to {A ri'a B}, > whereas > {A ipubo B} corresponds to {B pu A}. > > See: >
> > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > >
On 5/8/05, John E Clifford wrote: > Each of these has within memory gone the other > way. In any case, they are good reasons for not > connecting tags too rigorously with the > "corresponding" brivla.
But this is independent of the corresponding brivla, it is purely a matter of tags, even if they don't have any corresponding brivla.
{A i pu je ri'a B} goes with {B pu je se ri'a A}, no matter what the brivla.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
> On 5/8/05, John E Clifford > wrote: > > Each of these has within memory gone the > other > > way. In any case, they are good reasons for > not > > connecting tags too rigorously with the > > "corresponding" brivla. > > But this is independent of the corresponding > brivla, it is > purely a matter of tags, even if they don't > have any > corresponding brivla. > > {A i pu je ri'a B} goes with {B pu je se ri'a > A}, no matter what > the brivla. > I wasn't commenting directly on the issue, just taking another opportunity to make a point -- relevant to all the tag sections, to be sure. And, of course, the two cases are exactly opposite with repect to the brivla associated with them. (But use to be so the other way 'round -- and have occasionally agreed).