Difference between revisions of "User:Gleki/CLL, next edition"

From Lojban
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 3: Line 3:
 
An ever-being-updated list of suggestions for the next revision of CLL:
 
An ever-being-updated list of suggestions for the next revision of CLL:
  
 +
* 21 BNF. Rule 6 in the introductory remarks on EBNF syntax should clarify that "A & B" means "A | B | A B", but does not permit "B A". Further, explain that "A & B & C & D" permits one or more of A, B, C, and/or D, but ONLY in that order.
 +
*18.19 and 19.7 - merge into one
 +
*16.9 It says "for no x" (noda) is the same as "it is false for some x" (naku su'oda). I (mi'e zort) interpret "it is false for some x" as "there is an x such that it is false" (su'oda naku), not "it is false that for some x it is true" (naku su'oda), so it should be changed to "it is false that for some x".
 +
*13.15? Couldn't the {se'u}s be elided since their sumti are before their selbri?
 +
*11.12 The phrase {le ka la frank ciska} is glossed as "The quality-of Frank's writing". {ka} glosses to the word "property", and the Lojban doesn't talk at all about quality (as in jezyprane), so I believe the word "quality" was accidentally put there, having bled into the interlinear gloss from the author's intended natural English translation. That said, I (Zort) believe the gloss should be "The property-that Frank writes". That said, I (still Zort) have a humble suggestion for a demonstration of this section's grammatical feature, a cynical little observation, that has occured in my Lojban speech "in the wild", and perhaps therefore proves at least some usefulness of this grammatical feature: {le'e prenu cu djica lo mu'e jenai za'i gunka}.
 
*The tengwar table should use actual tengwar in addition to their names, since we now have Unicode (CSUR) and good fonts.
 
*The tengwar table should use actual tengwar in addition to their names, since we now have Unicode (CSUR) and good fonts.
 
*4.7 In the procedure for making a non-Lojban word into a valid Stage 3 fu'ivla, double consonants are to be eliminated before the sounds are to be converted to their closest Lojban equivalents, but it is possible that consecutive consonants have different sounds (like in 'eccentric'). So these actions should swap places. The same goes for section 8, in the procedure for Lojbanizing a name.
 
*4.7 In the procedure for making a non-Lojban word into a valid Stage 3 fu'ivla, double consonants are to be eliminated before the sounds are to be converted to their closest Lojban equivalents, but it is possible that consecutive consonants have different sounds (like in 'eccentric'). So these actions should swap places. The same goes for section 8, in the procedure for Lojbanizing a name.

Revision as of 13:35, 27 June 2019

An ever-being-updated list of suggestions for the next revision of CLL:

  • 21 BNF. Rule 6 in the introductory remarks on EBNF syntax should clarify that "A & B" means "A | B | A B", but does not permit "B A". Further, explain that "A & B & C & D" permits one or more of A, B, C, and/or D, but ONLY in that order.
  • 18.19 and 19.7 - merge into one
  • 16.9 It says "for no x" (noda) is the same as "it is false for some x" (naku su'oda). I (mi'e zort) interpret "it is false for some x" as "there is an x such that it is false" (su'oda naku), not "it is false that for some x it is true" (naku su'oda), so it should be changed to "it is false that for some x".
  • 13.15? Couldn't the {se'u}s be elided since their sumti are before their selbri?
  • 11.12 The phrase {le ka la frank ciska} is glossed as "The quality-of Frank's writing". {ka} glosses to the word "property", and the Lojban doesn't talk at all about quality (as in jezyprane), so I believe the word "quality" was accidentally put there, having bled into the interlinear gloss from the author's intended natural English translation. That said, I (Zort) believe the gloss should be "The property-that Frank writes". That said, I (still Zort) have a humble suggestion for a demonstration of this section's grammatical feature, a cynical little observation, that has occured in my Lojban speech "in the wild", and perhaps therefore proves at least some usefulness of this grammatical feature: {le'e prenu cu djica lo mu'e jenai za'i gunka}.
  • The tengwar table should use actual tengwar in addition to their names, since we now have Unicode (CSUR) and good fonts.
  • 4.7 In the procedure for making a non-Lojban word into a valid Stage 3 fu'ivla, double consonants are to be eliminated before the sounds are to be converted to their closest Lojban equivalents, but it is possible that consecutive consonants have different sounds (like in 'eccentric'). So these actions should swap places. The same goes for section 8, in the procedure for Lojbanizing a name.
  • Chapter 10 It would be nice if there was a template for compound tenses around the end of the chapter, like the template for compound cnima'o in chapter 13 section 8.
  • 5.14 The three letter language abbreviations were probably used to save space, but now that we have actual tables we can safely write the full names of the languages.
  • see what's left at CLL, aka Reference Grammar, Errata
  • take parts from suggestions for CLL, second edition here and there
  • change sumti tcita to sumtcita
  • rename CMENE to CMEVLA
  • Section 6, restriction no. 2 already forbids 8 of the 12 consonant pairs that are forbidden by restriction no. 3; perhaps it's better to just explicitly forbid the pairs "cs", "jz", "sc" and "zj" like in the last restriction.
  • The Cyrillic letters given map to 'abcdefgijklmnoprstuvxyz'? That doesn't seem totally obvious.
  • pr according to Existential import, change mentions of "existential import" in CLL accordingly
  • A lot of this terminology is used without being defined. We should formally define the terminology that is import to understanding the grammar and syntax of Lojban, preferably in a sidebar outside of the main text.
    • superfective
  • The Dot Side, the Case Against LA, dotside or Not?
  • add cu after all cmevla when CMEVLA brivla constructs arises otherwise
  • Section 5 It seems like the writers of the CLL originally did really just think of lujvo as being shortened forms of tanru who have been given an explicit meaning instead of the vague meaning that tanru have.