Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Delivery-date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:03:11 -0700
DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;  s=s1024; d=rogers.com;  h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;  b=M8RzRVvDhb/ZuP6yFvRjIYia9BDEBXw6+yLFVrYMcwJAQMSI9IpXk7W7FiUnN6Y6XFClnZ/rYhQaIEDkOdL/bpGirehOSlG1ZMztHdZ330rJTI1DrR7eSNH+GGOwyLfkOfmN98c+bmHQvZUVwJLGpK0xBjEi1UqbL2GRe5xz6Pc=;
Message-ID: <448274.31191.qm@web88008.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <201009161103.17292.phma@phma.optus.nu> <AANLkTikEA-vqzWuJJ9_DfDL-Q7L8LfkhsKD7ciarZdQG@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikpwQGpibayxSEDHdcFiS6+QWOkhrVZp2zJST6P@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: "A. PIEKARSKI" <totus@rogers.com>
Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: crab
To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikpwQGpibayxSEDHdcFiS6+QWOkhrVZp2zJST6P@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Content-Length: 1152
Lines: 31


> 
> >> i haven't followed the discussion lately (if there was any), but
> >> wasn't it considered bad style to use brazenly cultural fu'ivla for
> >> non-cultural items?
> >
> > Opinions differ of course, but I consider Pierre's fu'ivla the epitome
> > of good style.  They're some of my favorite words, and I feel he's
> > added a lot to the beauty of our language.
> >
> > I'd consider sacrificing aesthetics for supposed cultural neutrality
> > to be quite silly in a language that already has short rafsi for some
> > cultures and only long fu'ivla for others.  And I'm not so convinced
> > anyway that there's something ideally neutral about scientific Latin.


Aesthetics and beauty are subjective (personally and culturally) and 
time-dependant concepts.  What may be beautiful for you may be ugly 
for someone else.  What is considered pleasing aesthetically today may 
not be in the future.  That is why aesthetics do not figure in Lojban's design 
criteria.

As for the use of Linnaean terminology, the point isn't that it's Latin, but 
that its accepted in at least one significant world-wide community, 
namely the scientific.

totus