Appendix talk:Lojban/zgitci

RFC discussion: October 2012

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

zgitci‎, zgisamtro, xelkla

What POS headers are these supposed to have? Brivla? The ones they have are nonstandard. - -sche (discuss) 01:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Under our practice of language autonomy, we have PoS headers for some languages that are not part of ELE. Lojban has at least brivla and cmavo, which have entries in English, based on usage in Lojban grammars and language-learning books. There are distinctive headings for Chinese, Japanese, and Latin and CodeCat, for example, has recently brought up a case from an African language.

In this case, I would think we would prefer to force a more conventional PoS on the entries, if at all possible, and use usage labels, usage notes, and categorization to support whatever distinctions need to be made. DCDuring TALK 13:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Also gismu and lujvo. What distinguished these from most of the other headers is that the words themselves are borrowed from the language to which the term is applied, making the task of language learning and comparison harder. DCDuring TALK 13:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't mind switching the Lobjan entries to use 'English' parts of speech, but all the entries should be switched, not just these three. - -sche (discuss) 18:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Category:User jbo, User:Robin Lionheart and User:PierreAbbat are members whose names I recognize. w:Lojban makes it look as if some of the grammar terms are hypernyms of the familiar PoS categories and the familiar ones don't have any corresponding terms, so we would need to be inventive, which seems an unwise course. DCDuring TALK 19:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)