Remove "complete specifications"#31
Conversation
Some gismu definitions explicitly ask for so-called "complete sets" or "complete masses" in some sumti places. Get rid of them and allow incomplete specifications everywhere. See also: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+gismu+Section%3A+Complete+vs.+Incomplete+Specifications
|
I don't really understand this issue. But I do have grep! Here is what I found (29 gismu total): Did I miss any? Are we proposing to change all these definitions? |
|
la durka cu cusku di'e
All of those will automatically change when set-places turn into plurals |
|
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:20 PM, selpahi notifications@github.com wrote:
I'm not at all sure about that, not for all of them. "gunma" should still |
|
la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e
gunma's definition doesn't actually mention the word "complete", so it But yes, this kind of distinction is important, I agree.
That's possible. I think that even if we find that they are indeed mi'e la selpa'i |
|
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:06 PM, selpahi notifications@github.com wrote:
I agree. |
|
pe'i lo re moi te sumti be zo gunma cu skicu lo ro se cmima 2014-06-05 19:20 GMT+04:00 selpahi notifications@github.com:
|
Some gismu definitions explicitly ask for so-called "complete sets" or "complete masses" in some sumti places. Get rid of them and allow incomplete specifications everywhere.
See also: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+gismu+Section%3A+Complete+vs.+Incomplete+Specifications