WikiDiscuss

Posted by rlpowell on Sat 05 of Aug, 2006 06:20 GMT posts: 14214

OK. I've been promising xorxes for a while to explain the various
bits I don't like about his translations of the website interface,
and I figured I might as well do it here, in public.

First off, mi mutce sinma la xorxes noi mutce gunka le pu nu fanva

There's just a huge amount of work in there; go you.

Secondly, some general points that colour my complaints: I believe
that experts in a field should get "dibs" on defining terminology in
that field. I consider myself an expert on computers (I've been a
sysadmin for my entire adult life). I *strongly* dislike nonce
lujvo.

The reason I didn't write this up before is I didn't have anything
better; I've now gotten back to work on my "something better"; see
http://teddyb.org/~rlpowell/hobbies/lojban/palm/misc/computer.html
for more information on my philosophy of Lojban computer terminology
and a bunch of word defs.

Last, but not least, I'm not going to mention here the many words I
don't have complaints about.

OK, enough caveats, here we go.

papri for web page

See the essay; many notes about that. I suggest mutpapri.

stika for edit

Both stika and galfi suck, being non-agentive (they want events), but I prefer galfi in this case, because if I edit the sentence "mi klama" to read "mi pu klama", it is _much_ more natural to phrase that as "mi jai galfi lu mi klama li'u lu mi pu klama li'u" then as "mi jai stika lo ka le jufra cu dunli lu mi klama li'u kei lo ni co'e zo pu" or whatever you'd have to say with stika. stika just doesn't make much sense here.

pructa, mrilu, nalzu'e as preview, post, cancel in the forums

nalzu'e is fine, but "preview" means "see what this would look like before you commit to your action". I have no idea what "pructa" means, but surely it is something like "look at the past form of X"? If pructa was defined to mean something like "view X before event Y", then maybe, but that seems counter-intuitive in the extreme. mrilu is flat-out wrong; the fact that our forums happen to send mail notwithstanding, that's not the action being undertaken with that button; the action being undertaken is adding your comments to the forums. More generally, you are finishing/committing your edits to a new forum post. My suggestions are cipra galfi, co'u galfi, and na galfi. For the first one, I'd actually prefer something with pu'o, but I can't think of anything good; what I want is ((pu'o galfi) zgana), but I can't remember/figure out how to get it. Also, for forum posts rather than normal edits, "co'u jmina" is probably a bit better, but I don't know that we have the option of distinguishing the two. A more general "cancel" is "na gasnu".

plivei for login

Absolutely not. plivei is clearly "log" or "log entry" in the sense of "my apache log records that you grabbed foo.gif at 23:11 yesterday". Logging in is about establishing credentials based on a previously existing record, but the establishment of the user's rights to a set of credentials is key, not the record itself. I suggest (in my essay) co'a se jaspu; see the essay for other related terms too.

ralpari for home page

I hate nonce lujvo. "ralju pari" wastes only one syllable, FFS.

More to come later.

On 8/6/06, rlpowell <wikidiscuss@lojban.org> wrote:

> ;stika for edit : Both stika and galfi suck, being non-agentive (they want
> events), but I prefer galfi in this case, because if I edit the sentence
> "mi klama" to read "mi pu klama", it is _much_ more natural to phrase
> that as "mi jai galfi lu mi klama li'u lu mi pu klama li'u" then as "mi jai stika
> lo ka le jufra cu dunli lu mi klama li'u kei lo ni co'e zo pu" or whatever you'd
> have to say with stika. stika just doesn't make much sense here.

This is how I think of the binxo/cenba/galfi/stika quartet:

binxo: x1 changes into x2
cenba: x1 changes in aspect x2

The difference between those two is that after a nu binxo, the x1 is no longer
there and has been transformed into something else, the x2, whereas after
a nu cenba the x1 is still there, only that some aspect of it has changed.
This is merely a matter of point of view, since any change can be described
as a nu binxo or as a nu cenba, depending on what you want to focus on.
Whether you decide that the thing that changed is still the same thing or not
is totally arbitrary.

Now, I take:

galfi: gasnu lo nu binxo
stika: gasnu lo nu cenba

What happens when we edit a page? Do we change a page into some other
page, or do we change some aspect of it, while the page remains the same
page? Both are possible, but at least for me the prototypical editing involves
just an addition or modification, perhaps just adding a comma, not a drastic
transformation of one page into some other page. While it is possible to
think of the result of adding a comma as changing a page into another page,
I prefer to view it as a modification.

Of course, that assumes that {stika} means "x1 changes x2 in aspect x3"
rather that whatever the gi'uste says it means, which I can't really fathom.

> ;pructa, mrilu, nalzu'e as preview, post, cancel in the forums : nalzu'e is
> fine, but "preview" means "see what this would look like before you commit
> to your action". I have no idea what "pructa" means, but surely it is
> something like "look at the past form of X"? If pructa was defined to mean
> something like "view X before event Y", then maybe, but that seems
> counter-intuitive in the extreme.

Why counter-intuitive? That's exactly what "pre"-"view" means.

I think pru- should work as a general translation for pre-, and if not then
we should have something else for this because it's a very useful prefix.

> mrilu is flat-out wrong; the fact that our forums happen to send mail
> notwithstanding, that's not the action being undertaken with that button;
> the action being undertaken is adding your comments to the forums.
> More generally, you are finishing/committing your edits to a new forum
> post. My suggestions are cipra galfi, co'u galfi, and na galfi.

I think focusing on modification here is wrong, since most posts
are posted once and never modified, but I don't really intend to defend
{mrilu}.

> For the first one, I'd actually prefer something with pu'o, but I can't think of
> anything good; what I want is ((pu'o galfi) zgana), but I can't remember/figure
> out how to get it.

{pu'o zei galfi zgana}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Posted by JohnCowan on Mon 07 of Aug, 2006 16:23 GMT posts: 149

Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:

> The difference between those two is that after a nu binxo, the x1 is
> no longer there and has been transformed into something else, the x2,
> whereas after a nu cenba the x1 is still there, only that some aspect
> of it has changed. This is merely a matter of point of view, since
> any change can be described as a nu binxo or as a nu cenba, depending
> on what you want to focus on. Whether you decide that the thing that
> changed is still the same thing or not is totally arbitrary.

> stika: gasnu lo nu cenba

snip

> Of course, that assumes that {stika} means "x1 changes x2 in aspect x3"
> rather that whatever the gi'uste says it means, which I can't really fathom.

The point about "stika" is that it's quantitative. It works like this:

da stika lo ni de cu broda li tu'o

means that the agent da changes the broda-ness of de by the numeric value tu'o.
For example:

mi stika lo ni le jupta'e cu glare vau li panono

means that I warm the oven by 100 degrees.

If the abstraction is ka rather than ni, then da is changing de to have or not
have the broda property.

--
Mark Twain on Cecil Rhodes: John Cowan
I admire him, I freely admit it, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and when his time comes I shall cowan@ccil.org
buy a piece of the rope for a keepsake.

Posted by rlpowell on Tue 08 of Aug, 2006 01:53 GMT posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 10:53:42AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> On 8/6/06, rlpowell <wikidiscuss@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> >;stika for edit : Both stika and galfi suck, being non-agentive
> >(they want events), but I prefer galfi in this case, because if I
> >edit the sentence "mi klama" to read "mi pu klama", it is _much_
> >more natural to phrase that as "mi jai galfi lu mi klama li'u lu
> >mi pu klama li'u" then as "mi jai stika lo ka le jufra cu dunli
> >lu mi klama li'u kei lo ni co'e zo pu" or whatever you'd have to
> >say with stika. stika just doesn't make much sense here.
>
> This is how I think of the binxo/cenba/galfi/stika quartet:
>
> binxo: x1 changes into x2
>
> cenba: x1 changes in aspect x2
>
> The difference between those two is that after a nu binxo, the x1
> is no longer there and has been transformed into something else,
> the x2, whereas after a nu cenba the x1 is still there, only that
> some aspect of it has changed. This is merely a matter of point of
> view, since any change can be described as a nu binxo or as a nu
> cenba, depending on what you want to focus on. Whether you decide
> that the thing that changed is still the same thing or not
> is totally arbitrary.

I'm with you on all of that.

> Now, I take:
>
> galfi: gasnu lo nu binxo
>
> stika: gasnu lo nu cenba

Clearly not, because the x1 of both is an event.

> What happens when we edit a page? Do we change a page into some
> other page, or do we change some aspect of it, while the page
> remains the same page? Both are possible, but at least for me the
> prototypical editing involves just an addition or modification,
> perhaps just adding a comma, not a drastic transformation of one
> page into some other page. While it is possible to think of the
> result of adding a comma as changing a page into another page, I
> prefer to view it as a modification.

I agree with almost all of that, however:

1. I assert that galfi *is* a modification, not a transformation;
the keyword is modify, FFS!

2. Regardless of all of the above, the place structure of stika is
still very, very bad (ignoring the fact that it uses old ka, even),
because it's about changing things by an *amount*, and that doesn't
make any sense here.

> Of course, that assumes that {stika} means "x1 changes x2 in
> aspect x3" rather that whatever the gi'uste says it means, which I
> can't really fathom.

Old ka. Pretend it says:

x1 (event) adjusts/regulates/changes x2 in properly x3 (ka/ni) by
amount/degree x4

> >;pructa, mrilu, nalzu'e as preview, post, cancel in the forums :
> >nalzu'e is fine, but "preview" means "see what this would look
> >like before you commit to your action". I have no idea what
> >"pructa" means, but surely it is something like "look at the past
> >form of X"? If pructa was defined to mean something like "view X
> >before event Y", then maybe, but that seems counter-intuitive in
> >the extreme.
>
> Why counter-intuitive? That's exactly what "pre"-"view" means.

This is one of the places you and I disagree: I do not, in any way,
hold the English words used for these things to be sacred. Quite
the opposite: I think a great deal of them should die in the arse.

The English definition of "preview" fits quite well, in fact, but
the English definition you'd *expect* from "pre" + "view":

1. An advance showing, as of a movie or art exhibition, to which a selected
audience is invited before public presentation begins.

2. An advance viewing or exhibition, especially the presentation of several
scenes advertising a forthcoming movie; a trailer.

3. An introductory or preliminary message, sample, or overview; a foretaste.

The English word means something like "a view of something before it
is completed or made generally available", which is a lot to take
out of "pre" + "view", and a *whole lot* to take from "purci" +
"catlu".

> I think pru- should work as a general translation for pre-, and if
> not then we should have something else for this because it's a
> very useful prefix.

I think "pru-" == "pre-" is a good general guideline, but in *this*
case, it seems to me to be like expecting to use "carvi" + "clupa"
for a Lojban word for "rainbow".

Having said all that, if you want to define a place structure for
pructa that makes this make sense, I don't care all that much.

> >mrilu is flat-out wrong; the fact that our forums happen to send
> >mail notwithstanding, that's not the action being undertaken with
> >that button; the action being undertaken is adding your comments
> >to the forums. More generally, you are finishing/committing your
> >edits to a new forum post. My suggestions are cipra galfi, co'u
> >galfi, and na galfi.
>
> I think focusing on modification here is wrong, since most posts
> are posted once and never modified, but I don't really intend to
> defend {mrilu}.

So {jmina} instead of {galfi}, then.

Of course, from the computer geek perspective, which is mine, every
post is a modification of the database.

> >For the first one, I'd actually prefer something with pu'o, but I
> >can't think of anything good; what I want is ((pu'o galfi)
> >zgana), but I can't remember/figure out how to get it.
>
> {pu'o zei galfi zgana}.

Ewwww.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/

On 8/7/06, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote:
>
> For example:
>
> mi stika lo ni le jupta'e cu glare vau li panono
>
> means that I warm the oven by 100 degrees.

Or cool it?

But assuming these are right:

le toknu cu zenba lo ni ce'u glare
le toknu cu jdika lo ni ce'u glare
le toknu cu cenba lo ni ce'u glare

And thus:

mi zengau le toknu lo ni ce'u glare
mi jdikygau le toknu lo ni ce'u glare
mi cnegau le toknu lo ni ce'u glare

then using {ni} without {ce'u} doesn't seem right, and {stika} should be
like {cnegau}, or eventually like {cneri'a}.

(I hadn't noticed before the strange voiced-voiceless parallels in
zenba-jdika cenba-stika.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On 8/7/06, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 10:53:42AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> > > Now, I take:
> >
> > galfi: gasnu lo nu binxo
> >
> > stika: gasnu lo nu cenba
>
> Clearly not, because the x1 of both is an event.

Yes, that's why I said "I take". I find the gi'uste so thoroughly inconsistent
with those things that I mostly ignore them, especially when I don't see any
point for them.

If you prefer:

galfi: rinka lo nu binxo
stika : rinka lo nu cenba

That still doesn't match the gi'uste perfectly because of the "under
conditions"
places, and because {stika} would seem to be missing a place.

> 1. I assert that galfi *is* a modification, not a transformation;
> the keyword is modify, FFS!

Keywords aside, do you think that after a nu galfi the x2 of {galfi}
is still there, like the x1 of {cenba} after a nu cenba, or that it is
no longer there, like the x1 of {binxo} after a nu binxo? In other words,
does {galfi} involve changing something into something else, or changing
something into itself?

> 2. Regardless of all of the above, the place structure of stika is
> still very, very bad (ignoring the fact that it uses old ka, even),
> because it's about changing things by an *amount*, and that doesn't
> make any sense here.

I agree.

> > Of course, that assumes that {stika} means "x1 changes x2 in
> > aspect x3" rather that whatever the gi'uste says it means, which I
> > can't really fathom.
>
> Old ka. Pretend it says:
>
> x1 (event) adjusts/regulates/changes x2 in properly x3 (ka/ni) by
> amount/degree x4

That would be more consistent. I would still ignore the "(event)" part, as
everybody ignores it for {galfi}.

...
> > I think focusing on modification here is wrong, since most posts
> > are posted once and never modified, but I don't really intend to
> > defend {mrilu}.
>
> So {jmina} instead of {galfi}, then.

One problem is that {jmina} is already in use for something else.

> Of course, from the computer geek perspective, which is mine, every
> post is a modification of the database.

Right, but these words are meant for the end user, not for the developer.
And you wouldn't want every button to be labeled {galfi}, even though probably
they all involve modifying something or other.

mi'e xorxes

Posted by rlpowell on Tue 08 of Aug, 2006 20:03 GMT posts: 14214

Much snipped because of general agreement (like the stupidity of the
"(event)" crap).

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 09:55:31AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> On 8/7/06, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 10:53:42AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> >1. I assert that galfi *is* a modification, not a
> >transformation; the keyword is modify, FFS!
>
> Keywords aside, do you think that after a nu galfi the x2 of
> {galfi} is still there, like the x1 of {cenba} after a nu cenba,
> or that it is no longer there, like the x1 of {binxo} after a nu
> binxo? In other words, does {galfi} involve changing something
> into something else, or changing something into itself?

I don't see the distinction as being particularily interesting or
useful, but I do agree that galfi is"more like binxo than cenba in
this respect.

> ...
> >> I think focusing on modification here is wrong, since most
> >> posts are posted once and never modified, but I don't really
> >> intend to defend {mrilu}.
> >
> >So {jmina} instead of {galfi}, then.
>
> One problem is that {jmina} is already in use for something else.

I just looked at all the uses of {jmina} in the export, and I don't
see a problem.

> >Of course, from the computer geek perspective, which is mine,
> >every post is a modification of the database.
>
> Right, but these words are meant for the end user, not for the
> developer.

To some extent, yes, but that won't lead me to accept atrocities
like "kliki". There's "appropriate to the audience" and then
there's "wrong".

> And you wouldn't want every button to be labeled {galfi}, even
> though probably they all involve modifying something or other.

True.

Next topic:

"bevri" for "import/export" in the language editing section.

That just seems like total nonsense; can you explain it?

Is there something wrong with benji?

-Robin

On 8/8/06, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
>
> I don't see the distinction as being particularily interesting or
> useful, but I do agree that galfi is"more like binxo than cenba in
> this respect.

My point is that "edit" is more about taking a thing and doing things
to it so that it remains essentially the same thing, with some aspect
slightly changed, than about taking a thing and converting it into some
other thing. Sometimes this is not the case, sometimes a page can be
"edited" into a completely different page, but that is not the prototypical
editing.

> > Right, but these words are meant for the end user, not for the
> > developer.
>
> To some extent, yes, but that won't lead me to accept atrocities
> like "kliki". There's "appropriate to the audience" and then
> there's "wrong".

I tried to stick to gismu as much as possible, then simple lujvo,
and only in a few cases did I resort to fu'ivla or unofficial gismu,
when I couldn't come up with anything else that convinced me.
I don't have a special phobia towards new words as long as we
don't go about creating them unthinkingly, but I accept others do,
and it is up to them to come up with better alternatives. (I suspect
that if the gismu list had been created today rather than some
decades ago, we would have a gismu for "click" that would look
more or less like {kliki}.)

> Next topic:
>
> "bevri" for "import/export" in the language editing section.
>
> That just seems like total nonsense; can you explain it?
>
> Is there something wrong with benji?

I think this was again a case of it being used for something
else. I don't exactly remember.

mi'e xorxes

Posted by stevo on Tue 08 of Aug, 2006 20:48 GMT posts: 381

In a message dated 8/8/2006 3:41:01 PM Central Standard Time,
jjllambias@gmail.com writes:

> > To some extent, yes, but that won't lead me to accept atrocities
> > like "kliki". There's "appropriate to the audience" and then
> > there's "wrong".
>
> I tried to stick to gismu as much as possible, then simple lujvo,
> and only in a few cases did I resort to fu'ivla or unofficial gismu,
> when I couldn't come up with anything else that convinced me.
> I don't have a special phobia towards new words as long as we
> don't go about creating them unthinkingly, but I accept others do,
> and it is up to them to come up with better alternatives. (I suspect
> that if the gismu list had been created today rather than some
> decades ago, we would have a gismu for "click" that would look
> more or less like {kliki}.)
>

How about "bapli"?

stevo

On 8/8/06, MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
> How about "bapli"?

The place structure would have to be something like "x1 clicks
on x2 in order to select/activate item/command/function x3".

mi'e xorxes

Posted by rlpowell on Wed 09 of Aug, 2006 00:31 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 05:40:18PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> On 8/8/06, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> >
> >I don't see the distinction as being particularily interesting or
> >useful, but I do agree that galfi is"more like binxo than cenba
> >in this respect.
>
> My point is that "edit" is more about taking a thing and doing
> things to it so that it remains essentially the same thing, with
> some aspect slightly changed, than about taking a thing and
> converting it into some other thing. Sometimes this is not the
> case, sometimes a page can be "edited" into a completely different
> page, but that is not the prototypical editing.

Fair enough, but we don't have a better word for that than galfi
that I can see in terms of usuable place structure.

> >> Right, but these words are meant for the end user, not for the
> >> developer.
> >
> >To some extent, yes, but that won't lead me to accept atrocities
> >like "kliki". There's "appropriate to the audience" and then
> >there's "wrong".
>
> I tried to stick to gismu as much as possible, then simple lujvo,
> and only in a few cases did I resort to fu'ivla or unofficial
> gismu, when I couldn't come up with anything else that convinced
> me. I don't have a special phobia towards new words as long as we
> don't go about creating them unthinkingly, but I accept others do,
> and it is up to them to come up with better alternatives.

OK. It's worth noting here that "kliki" *really* bothers me. I
have a hard time even thinking about it without getting quite upset.
So if I'm not civil, that's why. Perversely, being aware of that
will probably keep me civil.

Having said that, this has *nothing* to do with word phobia; kliki
is simply wrong in every respect.

> (I suspect that if the gismu list had been created today rather
> than some decades ago, we would have a gismu for "click" that
> would look more or less like {kliki}.)

Even if we had a word for "click" as in the action you take with
your fingers to activate a mouse button, it is *still the wrong
word*, because it doesn't actually have anything to do with the
action taking place!

The action taking place is that you are directing the computer to
make use of a web address. The fact that you are clicking a mouse
to do it is not just incidental, it's harmfully irrelevant. It
gives people a sense of homogeneity where none exists.

Things you click on that aren't web links:

menu items, program icons, window bars, window corners, etc, etc,
etc

Ways of activating web links that aren't clicking:

web robots, scripting languages, text-only browsers, using a
touchpad, using an eye tracker, using a data glove, using a pen
comuting device, using a cell phone (depends on the design), using
the keyboard (I've had to use IE with a keyboard only when my mouse
wasn't recognized), copying it into the URL field in your browser by
hand, ... I'm sure I'm missing some.

kliki simply doesn't match the process, and in many cases (I use a
text-only browser all the time) it doesn't even match the action.

IMO, the correct word for the verb in a translation of "click here
to read about weebles!" is "pilno".

> >Next topic:
> >
> >"bevri" for "import/export" in the language editing section.
> >
> >That just seems like total nonsense; can you explain it?
> >
> >Is there something wrong with benji?
>
> I think this was again a case of it being used for something else.
> I don't exactly remember.

Do you mean that "bevri lo bangu" is used in more than one distinct
context? If not, what do you mean?

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/

Posted by rlpowell on Wed 09 of Aug, 2006 00:33 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 06:10:38PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> On 8/8/06, MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com
> <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> >
> >How about "bapli"?
>
> The place structure would have to be something like "x1 clicks on
> x2 in order to select/activate item/command/function x3".

Diatribes aside, the right word is "pilno".

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeble">ko pilno ti lo nu cilre fi la .uibl.</a>

-Robin

On 8/8/06, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 05:40:18PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > My point is that "edit" is more about taking a thing and doing
> > things to it so that it remains essentially the same thing, with
> > some aspect slightly changed, than about taking a thing and
> > converting it into some other thing. Sometimes this is not the
> > case, sometimes a page can be "edited" into a completely different
> > page, but that is not the prototypical editing.
>
> Fair enough, but we don't have a better word for that than galfi
> that I can see in terms of usuable place structure.

How do you think we should deal with {stika}? Never use it, because
it's place structure as it appears in the gi'uste is unusable, or use it
with the obvious place structure "x1 changes x2 in aspect x3 with change
x4"?

> Things you click on that aren't web links:
>
> menu items, program icons, window bars, window corners, etc, etc,
> etc

Those would of course be valid things to use as the x2 of kliki, the x2 of
kliki would not be restricted to web links.

Perhaps I have the advantage that "click" (Spanish "cliquear/clicar",
Esperanto "kliki") for me doesn't have so strong associations with the
original English meaning. I am of course not proposing {kliki} for the
general meaning of English "to click", only for the widespread computer
sense.

> Diatribes aside, the right word is "pilno".
>
> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeble">ko pilno ti lo nu cilre fi la .uibl.</a>

I think {pilno} might be too vague for it. (Should that be {dei}
rather than {ti}?)

> > >Next topic:
> > >
> > >"bevri" for "import/export" in the language editing section.
> > >
> > >That just seems like total nonsense; can you explain it?
> > >
> > >Is there something wrong with benji?
> >
> > I think this was again a case of it being used for something else.
> > I don't exactly remember.
>
> Do you mean that "bevri lo bangu" is used in more than one distinct
> context? If not, what do you mean?

I used {benji} for "send" and "receive", (and for "submit"), and {bevri}
(barbei/nerbei) for "export"/"import". I can't really tell if a given
translation is used in a single context or not.

mi'e xorxes

Posted by rlpowell on Thu 10 of Aug, 2006 00:08 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 10:31:47AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> On 8/8/06, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 05:40:18PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> >> My point is that "edit" is more about taking a thing and doing
> >> things to it so that it remains essentially the same thing,
> >> with some aspect slightly changed, than about taking a thing
> >> and converting it into some other thing. Sometimes this is not
> >> the case, sometimes a page can be "edited" into a completely
> >> different page, but that is not the prototypical editing.
> >
> >Fair enough, but we don't have a better word for that than galfi
> >that I can see in terms of usuable place structure.
>
> How do you think we should deal with {stika}? Never use it,
> because it's place structure as it appears in the gi'uste is
> unusable, or use it with the obvious place structure "x1 changes
> x2 in aspect x3 with change x4"?

That's not the obvious place structure to me; the obvious place
structure to me is "x1 changes x2 in aspect x3 *in amount* x4".
It's the "amount" part that makes it not appropriate in this case.

> >Things you click on that aren't web links:
> >
> >menu items, program icons, window bars, window corners, etc, etc,
> >etc
>
> Those would of course be valid things to use as the x2 of kliki,
> the x2 of kliki would not be restricted to web links.

Fair enough.

> Perhaps I have the advantage that "click" (Spanish
> "cliquear/clicar", Esperanto "kliki") for me doesn't have so
> strong associations with the original English meaning. I am of
> course not proposing {kliki} for the general meaning of English
> "to click", only for the widespread computer sense.

Very possibly, but even given a word for exactly the computer sense,
I wouldn't use it for "click here to learn about weebles"; it's
wrong in English, and it's wrong in Lojban. I would use such a word
in a document explaining how to use a computer interface from the
ground up, though, like "to print, click on the "file" menu, then
select print by clicking on it".

> >Diatribes aside, the right word is "pilno".
> >
> > <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeble">ko pilno ti lo nu
> > cilre fi la .uibl.</a>
>
> I think {pilno} might be too vague for it.

Why?

> (Should that be {dei} rather than {ti}?)

Enh. I suppose.

> >> >Next topic:
> >> >
> >> >"bevri" for "import/export" in the language editing section.
> >> >
> >> >That just seems like total nonsense; can you explain it?
> >> >
> >> >Is there something wrong with benji?
> >>
> >> I think this was again a case of it being used for something
> >> else. I don't exactly remember.
> >
> >Do you mean that "bevri lo bangu" is used in more than one
> >distinct context? If not, what do you mean?
>
> I used {benji} for "send" and "receive", (and for "submit"), and
> {bevri} (barbei/nerbei) for "export"/"import". I can't really tell
> if a given translation is used in a single context or not.

• nod* I'd be find with bartu or nenri + benji, but bevri just seems

nonsensical here.

-Robin

On 8/9/06, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 10:31:47AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > How do you think we should deal with {stika}? Never use it,
> > because it's place structure as it appears in the gi'uste is
> > unusable, or use it with the obvious place structure "x1 changes
> > x2 in aspect x3 with change x4"?
>
> That's not the obvious place structure to me; the obvious place
> structure to me is "x1 changes x2 in aspect x3 *in amount* x4".
> It's the "amount" part that makes it not appropriate in this case.

If {stika} and {cenba} are to be restricted to quantitative changes in
amount only, which word are we left with for general changes in things
that do not involve transformations into new things?

> > Perhaps I have the advantage that "click" (Spanish
> > "cliquear/clicar", Esperanto "kliki") for me doesn't have so
> > strong associations with the original English meaning. I am of
> > course not proposing {kliki} for the general meaning of English
> > "to click", only for the widespread computer sense.
>
> Very possibly, but even given a word for exactly the computer sense,
> I wouldn't use it for "click here to learn about weebles"; it's
> wrong in English, and it's wrong in Lojban.

How can it be wrong in English, if it's common usage? By what
standard is it wrong? And why would it be wrong in Lojban if we are
free to define the new word so that it is right?

> > >Diatribes aside, the right word is "pilno".
> > >
> > > <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeble">ko pilno ti lo nu
> > > cilre fi la .uibl.</a>
> >
> > I think {pilno} might be too vague for it.
>
> Why?

Because "use" has a much more general meaning than "click". First you
have to realize that "this" is a clickable link in order to figure out that the
proper way to use it is to click on it.

> > I used {benji} for "send" and "receive", (and for "submit"), and
> > {bevri} (barbei/nerbei) for "export"/"import". I can't really tell
> > if a given translation is used in a single context or not.
>
> *nod* I'd be find with bartu or nenri + benji, but bevri just seems
> nonsensical here.

It's more metaphorical, yes, but I don't find it nonsensical. Anyway, if you
think there won't be conflicts with the other uses of {benji}, I don't mind
using {benji} for that too.

mu'o mi'e xorxes