--- On Sun, 9/13/09, <deinx nxtxr> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: <deinx nxtxr> <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Bootstrapping a self-defining conlang dictionary
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Sunday, September 13, 2009, 7:58 PM
> Daniel Demski wrote:
>
> >> And the trouble with using multiple illustrations
> is that they're ambiguous:
> >> if something is omitted, is that a _meaningful_
> omission, i.e. something not
> >> listed on purpose, or is it omitted because it's
> assumed the user would have
> >> gotten the idea already? �(And the problem still
> holds even if you introduce
> >> illustrations of what the atom *doesn't* cover).
>
> > Aren't English definitions just as ambiguous?
>
> They don't have to be. For my conlangs I try to avoid
> just giving just a single word to definine a Conlang-X
> word. I'll usually give several words to give the
> reader a feel for the true Conlangish meaning of the
> word. Sometimes I quick parenthetical note is added to
> give more clarity, and sometimes a note to indicate a
> particular subject matter where the term may not be
> clear. On example is the "mouse" that we've been
> using. Without a picture, how would I know whether
> "mouse" means the animal or the {expletives censored} thing
> to my right that's giving me CTS. In on my
> dictionaries one entry be flagged by the subject "zoology"
> and the other "computing".
>
My conlang dictionary doesn't have a single definition that is made up of only one word. That's not to say a single word might not ever do the job, but so far I haven't found just one to be sufficient.
Eventually, I may go back through my dictionary to add usage examples. Sometimes an example does more to clarify a word's meaning than a definition can.
Lee
