Etymology

[lagleki]

Etymology field is awkward. There are two possible solutions:

1. Move the etymology field into the editdef.html page.
2. Retain etymology only for Lojban-Lojban dictionary. Indeed, if you are so interested in Lojban as you want to know where words come from then you must be able to read in Lojban. Having etymology explanations translated to all languages is tiresome and not productive. We should have as much as we can written in Lojban itself.

[audreytoskin]

I think showing the root words for a term is useful for learning Lojbanic vocabulary, but yes, a full Oxford English Dictionary-style etymology for every word is probably unnecessary for translations.

[lagleki]

I don't think etymology is useful. Mnemonics is useful, yes. So I suggest
opening another issue with a field for mnemonics for each definition and
for each language. This field should be parallel to the current "notes"
field (just a text inputbox, newlines should be allowed).

2014-03-30 3:23 GMT+04:00 Andrew Toskin [email protected]:

I think showing the root words for a term is useful for learning Lojbanic
vocabulary, but yes, a full Oxford English Dictionary-style etymology for
every word is probably unnecessary for translations.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/12#issuecomment-39012441
.

[audreytoskin]

I think we're in agreement(?), but just to be perfectly clear: There is indeed value in knowing the affixes which join together to make new words. When you run across an unfamiliar word, but you know the root words, you can generally determine their combined meanings without having to look up the new word.

There is still value in etymology, as in the origins/history of the development of a word or phrase, but etymological notes probably aren't necessary for translation because they aren't as practical for those who are simply trying to learn to use the language.

I haven't really noticed any extensive etymologies in the jbovlaste; however, I do appreciate the listed gismu / rafsi.

[lagleki]

Etymology notes can have value for speakers of major languages. Still the
algorithm wasn't meant to simplify the memorizing.
I don't think a nintadni must know that {solri} comes from "solar" + 日 [ri].

For English speakers the "mnemonics" field would show only "solar", for
Chinese speakers only 日.
Etymology would be shown only for Lojban direction.
We should give only necessary and sufficient information in
other-than-Lojban, and as little as possible. If something can be explained
in Lojban itself (taking into account the proficiency of a learner) then
there is no need in translating anything to other languages.

2014-03-30 11:23 GMT+04:00 Andrew Toskin [email protected]:

I think we're in agreement(?), but just to be perfectly clear: There is
value in knowing the affixes which join together to make new words. When
you run across a new word, but you know the rootwords, you can generally
determine their combined meanings without having to look up the new word.

There is still value in etymology, as in the origins/history of a word
or phrase, but etymological notes probably aren't necessary for translation
because they aren't as practical for those who are simply trying to learn
to use the language.

I haven't really noticed any extensive etymologies in the jbovlaste;
however, I do appreciate listed gismu / rafsi.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/12#issuecomment-39019564
.

[audreytoskin]

Okay, then yes.

.i mi tugni do