arj wrote:
> These are not correct gloss words.
>
> "heat ; sex" would be "ka glebre", not "glebre".
>
> A more correct keyword would be "be in heat ; sex", but this would be
> collated under b, not h.
>
> If I were doing this definition, I would probably not have any gloss
words
> at all.

Since I can't add "ka glebre" to the Lojban words, and someone looking for
"glebre" or "heat" won't find it if the entry is "ka glebre" or "be in
heat", I'll leave the gloss words as they are and add a note.

Comment #3: Re: Inappropriately abstracted gloss words

Arnt Richard Johansen (Sun Dec 12 14:55:03 2004)

phma wrote: > Since I can't add "ka glebre" to the Lojban words, and someone looking for > "glebre" or "heat" won't find it if the entry is "ka glebre" or "be in > heat", I'll leave the gloss words as they are and add a note. That's okay. Another issue: If I'm not mistaken, the "notes" field will end up in the English part of the dictionary, together with the definition. Therefore, it should be in English, not in Lojban.

Comment #4: Re: Inappropriately abstracted gloss words Pierre Abbat (Sun Dec 12 23:30:32 2004) arj wrote: > If I'm not mistaken, the "notes" field will end up in the English part of > the dictionary, together with the definition. Therefore, it should be in > English, not in Lojban. The notes field of "glebre" ends up in the Lojban-English part. The note about musth is for a jbopli who knows "glebre" but not "musth". Other notes, such as the one at naxle, are for glipli and clarify the meaning of the Lojban word.