I don't see any mechanism by which this lujvo is a better definition for
"tall-tale" than "nickle cat" or "gold dog". The definition is so
arbitrary as to leave no method for which to compare it to other
suggestions. It is no better than a random choice, which I consider an
insufficient condition for defining a new word.

Comment #2: Re: neither

Lindar Greenwood (Sun Feb 20 19:55:05 2011)

alynpost wrote: > I don't see any mechanism by which this lujvo is a better definition for > "tall-tale" than "nickle cat" or "gold dog". The definition is so > arbitrary as to leave no method for which to compare it to other > suggestions. It is no better than a random choice, which I consider an > insufficient condition for defining a new word. It's a culture word that I added after speaking to a few other lojbanists. We had a storytelling game, unique to our language, wot featured a nikle gerku. I'll post the rules to the Lojban list, though they should be available on the wiki. If jboklu isn't a sufficient reason to coin a word, then I'm not sure what does.

Comment #3: Re: neither alynpost (Sun Feb 20 20:13:20 2011) lindarthebard wrote: > alynpost wrote: > > I don't see any mechanism by which this lujvo is a better definition for > > "tall-tale" than "nickle cat" or "gold dog". The definition is so > > arbitrary as to leave no method for which to compare it to other > > suggestions. It is no better than a random choice, which I consider an > > insufficient condition for defining a new word. > > > It's a culture word that I added after speaking to a few other lojbanists. > We had a storytelling game, unique to our language, wot featured a nikle > gerku. I'll post the rules to the Lojban list, though they should be > available on the wiki. If jboklu isn't a sufficient reason to coin a word, > then I'm not sure what does. I'm not strictly suggesting that jboklu is not a sufficient reason to coin a word, I am suggesting that *if* culture is a sufficient reason to coin a word, that we use the process one uses for allowing culture to define words: wikipedia has an extensively documented policy concerning contributions from primary sources, and dictionary editing teams also use a process to vet new words before putting them in the dictionary. In summary, if cultural transmission is a valid mechanism for putting words in a dictionary, you Lindar as a primary source cannot add words you coin or that are coined in your presence. You're a primary source in this instance and it is a conflict of interest for you to decide whether there is cultural transmission worthy of coining a new word. You'd need to wait for the word to be noticed and documented by someone else not involved in the word-coining activity.