The gloss should be just "initiate". "to" is unnecessary, as it causes
people looking up the English word to go to "to" for verbs.

Comment #2: Re: gloss verb format

Kevin Reid (Wed Jan 5 13:44:00 2005)

phma wrote: > The gloss should be just "initiate". "to" is unnecessary, as it causes > people looking up the English word to go to "to" for verbs. I was attempting to replace a mangled noralujv definition, so I had to add "to initiate something" as a gloss word. Since one can only vote for one definition for a given natlang word, how should "initiate" as a noun and "initiate" as a verb be distinguished? I haven't seen a general convention for this, and I can't add just "initiate" unqualified as a gloss word for this, since the noun and verb are very different.

Comment #3: Re: gloss verb format Pierre Abbat (Wed Jan 5 23:35:08 2005) kpreid wrote: > I was attempting to replace a mangled noralujv definition, so I had to add > "to initiate something" as a gloss word. The noralujv definition votes have been deleted. If the only occurrence of a gloss word is in noralujv, it won't appear in the dictionary. > Since one can only vote for one definition for a given natlang word, how > should "initiate" as a noun and "initiate" as a verb be distinguished? I > haven't seen a general convention for this, and I can't add just > "initiate" unqualified as a gloss word for this, since the noun and verb > are very different. Put ";verb" if the meanings are the same except for the part of speech, or a few words that mean the same as the verb if they are different. See miptera for an example (no one has defined a word as "bug;annoy" yet). Also pinpedi, sperlanu, muvdu.