- Home
- Get A Printable Dictionary
- Search Best Words
- Recent Changes
- How You Can Help
- valsi - All
- valsi - Preferred Only
- natlang - All
- natlang - Preferred Only
- Languages
- XML Export
- user Listing
- Report Bugs
- Utilities
- Status
- Help
- Admin Request
- Create Account
|
Discussion of "zi'o"
Comment #1:
Semantic facet or alternative keyword
|
Curtis W Franks (Fri Apr 1 16:19:52 2016)
|
I will contact the BPFK about this proposal unless someone else does it first (post here if you do or if you see such a proposal, made recently, and no-one else has yet indicated that it exists here).
I think that "nonexistent it" is possibly a bad definition/gloss/keyword for this meaning. At the least, it should be narrowed or the word should be endowed with another gloss/keyword to the effect of "terbri-deletory it".
For the record: I think that all of these definitions, glosses, and keyword descriptions which have the word "it" in them in this manner should have that word replaced by ""it"" (so that it is explicitly shown to be a word). There may be technical complications and disadvantages that accompany the adoption of such a policy, but I think that the description is just straight-up wrong without the quoting.
|
-
Comment #2:
Re: Semantic facet or alternative keyword
|
gleki (Fri Apr 1 18:00:52 2016)
|
krtisfranks wrote: > I will contact the BPFK about this proposal unless someone else does it > first (post here if you do or if you see such a proposal, made recently, > and no-one else has yet indicated that it exists here). > > I think that "nonexistent it" is possibly a bad definition/gloss/keyword > for this meaning. At the least, it should be narrowed or the word should be > endowed with another gloss/keyword to the effect of "terbri-deletory it".
> > For the record: I think that all of these definitions, glosses, and keyword > descriptions which have the word "it" in them in this manner should have > that word replaced by ""it"" (so that it is explicitly shown to be a word). > There may be technical complications and disadvantages that accompany the
> adoption of such a policy, but I think that the description is just > straight-up wrong without the quoting.
You may just write a list of alternative definitions. The official ones were technical ones. But nevertheless they are in a more or less the same style. So you may translate sets of cmavo definitions into your "dialect" of English so that BPFK can adopt this set of new definitions as the reference ones.
|
-
|
|
|