I have used cmavrbai as "x1 is a BAI for word x2",
i.e. zo du'o cmavrbai zo djuno.

How useful is the definition you have right now? You could say
zo du'o cmavo ba'e *lo cmavrbai* tu'a zo djuno, but that is already
occasionally done with
zo du'o cmavo ba'e *zo bai* tu'a zo djuno or something similar.

In other words, it seems like the definition you have added is not very
useful.

Comment #2: Re: Usefulness?

Dan Rosn (Thu Apr 10 20:26:57 2014)

Ok, that was totally unreadable, let me try again: > I have used cmavrbai as "x1 is a BAI for word x2", > i.e. "zo du'o cmavrbai zo djuno". > > How useful is the definition you have right now? You could say > "zo du'o cmavo ba'e *lo cmavrbai* tu'a zo djuno", but that is already > occasionally done with > "zo du'o cmavo ba'e *zo bai* tu'a zo djuno" or something similar. > > In other words, it seems like the definition you have added is not very > useful.

Comment #3: Re: Usefulness? Wuzzy (Thu Apr 10 21:08:49 2014) danr wrote: > > How useful is the definition you have right now? You could say > > "zo du'o cmavo ba'e *lo cmavrbai* tu'a zo djuno" lol, there you have your use. > > "zo du'o cmavo ba'e *zo bai* tu'a zo djuno" or something similar. It may be the case that some people use this that way but I consider this a false statement. It means something different. It means (roughly): the-word “du'o” is a cmavo of the class: the-word “bai”; with meaning something about “to know”. This is not correct, since “zo bai” stands for the WORD “bai” and the WORD “bai” is not a grammatical structure class. I don’t know why you use “ba'e” here. “lo cmavrbai”, however, clearly refers to the selma'o, and not the word “bai”. So this makes a difference. Btw: The definitions have been already discussed on the mailing list. Too bad you didn’t join at that time, now making changes could be difficult. :-( (although I do not think the definiions need to be changes) Comment #4: Re: Usefulness? Dan Rosn (Fri Apr 11 09:59:57 2014) Wuzzy wrote: > danr wrote: > > > How useful is the definition you have right now? You could say > > > "zo du'o cmavo ba'e *lo cmavrbai* tu'a zo djuno" > lol, there you have your use. Yes, I was giving an example of what you could say. > > > > "zo du'o cmavo ba'e *zo bai* tu'a zo djuno" or something similar. > It may be the case that some people use this that way but I consider this > a false statement. > It means something different. > It means (roughly): the-word “du'o” is a cmavo of the class: the-word > “bai”; with meaning something about “to know”. > This is not correct, since “zo bai” stands for the WORD “bai” and > the WORD “bai” is not a grammatical structure class. Indeed, it is weird! I picked it up from the wave lessons which explicitly teach this. A better way would be: "li'o cmavo lo se cmavo be zo bai li'o" > I don’t know why you use “ba'e” here. I was using it for emphasising the important part of my sentence. > “lo cmavrbai”, however, clearly refers to the selma'o, and not the > word “bai”. So this makes a difference. > > Btw: The definitions have been already discussed on the mailing list. Too > bad you didn’t join at that time, now making changes could be difficult. > :-( (although I do not think the definiions need to be changes) Ok, my bad then! I guess I will have to make another word for it. Seems like "ma'orbai" is not taken ;) /Dan Comment #5: Re: Usefulness? gleki (Fri Apr 11 10:09:19 2014) danr wrote: > Wuzzy wrote: > > danr wrote: > > > > How useful is the definition you have right now? You could say > > > > "zo du'o cmavo ba'e *lo cmavrbai* tu'a zo djuno" > > lol, there you have your use. > > Yes, I was giving an example of what you could say. > > > > > > > "zo du'o cmavo ba'e *zo bai* tu'a zo djuno" or something similar. > > It may be the case that some people use this that way but I consider > this > > a false statement. > > It means something different. > > It means (roughly): the-word “du'o” is a cmavo of the class: > the-word > > “bai”; with meaning something about “to know”. > > This is not correct, since “zo bai” stands for the WORD “bai” > and > > the WORD “bai” is not a grammatical structure class. > > Indeed, it is weird! I picked it up from the wave lessons which > explicitly teach this. A better way would be: > > "li'o cmavo lo se cmavo be zo bai li'o" > > > I don’t know why you use “ba'e” here. > > I was using it for emphasising the important part of my sentence. > > > “lo cmavrbai”, however, clearly refers to the selma'o, and not the > > word “bai”. So this makes a difference. > > > > Btw: The definitions have been already discussed on the mailing list. > Too > > bad you didn’t join at that time, now making changes could be > difficult. > > :-( (although I do not think the definiions need to be changes) > > Ok, my bad then! I guess I will have to make another word for it. > Seems like "ma'orbai" is not taken ;) > > /Dan Agglutination style like cmavrbai seems like a bad trend lately. Those fu'ivla are better described using quotations. "zo bai poi se cmavo" and we are done. Populating the dictionary with these algorithmically created words is not of much use. The same can be said about ISO names of languages. We'd need a brivla for "x1 is the country referenced to by the two-letter ISO-name in x1" so that "fyry poi broda" would just mean "France" Comment #6: Re: Usefulness? Wuzzy (Fri Apr 11 11:42:22 2014) > "zo bai poi se cmavo" and we are done. You do the same as danr here. This basically says that the WORD “bai” is a selma'o. Probably not exactly what you wanted to say. By the way, you here on jboselkei there is even an entry for that: http://jboselkei.lojban.org/showpost.php?post=637 > Populating the dictionary with > these algorithmically created words is not of much use. I am slightly annoyed that you come with this NOW, after you have populated the dictionary with these words. Why didn’t you say that on the mailing list in the first place? o_O Also I won’t agree with that these words are of “not much use”. Even if you may find other valid (!) ways to express selma'o without involving fu'ivla, that doesn’t render the words invalid. Because at the end, it is really more a matter of taste. It is not a bad thing you can say the same thing in multiple ways. Comment #7: Re: Usefulness? gleki (Fri Apr 11 11:49:03 2014) Wuzzy wrote: > > "zo bai poi se cmavo" and we are done. > You do the same as danr here. This basically says that the WORD “bai” > is a selma'o. Probably not exactly what you wanted to say. > > By the way, you here on jboselkei there is even an entry for that: > http://jboselkei.lojban.org/showpost.php?post=637 But isn't it "zo bai cmavo zo bai"??? If not what would be the use of cmavo2 then? You are doing the same with your definition: x1 is the selma'o "BAI". If cmavo2 is underdocumented then it is another issue. > > > Populating the dictionary with > > these algorithmically created words is not of much use. > I am slightly annoyed that you come with this NOW, after you have > populated the dictionary with these words. Why didn’t you say that on > the mailing list in the first place? o_O Because it was my volunteer work. If others think they must be why should i stop them? The same for mw.lojban.org If almost no one helps me with it does it mean I should deny them to express other opinions? The problem can be only with voting this huge mass of words down at once. Comment #8: Re: Usefulness? Wuzzy (Sat Apr 12 02:41:47 2014) > But isn't it "zo bai cmavo zo bai"??? No. For the same reason I said it over and over again. The word “bai” is not a selma'o. Words are not grammatical structure classes. You probably wanted to say “zo bai cmavo la'e zo bai” or even “zo bai cmavo la'e zoi gy.BAI.gy.” (“the thing referred to by the word ‘bai’/the string ‘BAI’”). The “la'e” is the crucial part here. Although I would prefer the latter version, since the upper-case strings are established (=they are explicitly mentioned in the CLL), but the lower-case words are not establishd as words to refer to selma'o. If you wanted to establish this kind of convention, it would be a good idea to formalize this as well by working out a seperate list (“word ‘ABC’ refers to selma'o ‘XYZ’” etc.), just to be sure. Alternatively, you can also say “zo bai cmavo lo cmavrbai”. As every selma'o has a clear entry in the dictionary now, there should be theoretically no confusion anymore, well, at least to those who know the words or conventions. But as I said, at the end of the day it is all just a matter of convention. But the point is that there has to be at least SOME convention. TL;DR: Two safe methods to say some word is in some selma'o, in Lojban, are: 1) “zo bai cmavo la'e zoi gy.BAI.gy.” (safe because every selma'o name is documented in the CLL) 2) “zo bai cmavo lo cmavrbai” (safe because every selma'o has its own fu'ivla and is documented on jbovlaste. Dubious method (in my opinion): 3) “zo bai cmavo la'e zo bai” (dubious because there is no complete list of valid selma'o-referring words yet. Also: Are other words from the same structure class allowed to refer to the same selma'o? For example “zo bai cmavo la'e zo du'o”. This can be fixed by working out such a new list.) > You are doing the same with your definition: > x1 is the selma'o "BAI". This is because English lacks the possibility to make this fine distinction between words and the things referred to by words. There is no English “la'e” as far I know. English is not Lojban, sorry. :-( Comment #9: Re: Usefulness? gleki (Sat Apr 12 04:13:06 2014) if so "zo bai cmavo zo bai" is a completely useless construct. Comment #10: Re: Usefulness? Wuzzy (Sat Apr 12 11:05:54 2014) gleki wrote: > if so "zo bai cmavo zo bai" is a completely useless construct. Yes. So what?