From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Jan 14 10:28:44 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:28:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LNATr-0001fM-OF for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:28:44 -0800 Received: from mx.freeshell.org ([192.94.73.19] helo=sdf.lonestar.org ident=root) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LNATl-0001ez-La for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:28:42 -0800 Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (IDENT:jwodder@sverige.freeshell.org [192.94.73.4]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.2/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0EISU7v009548 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:28:30 GMT Received: (from jwodder@localhost) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.2/8.12.8/Submit) id n0EISUMs029101 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:28:30 GMT Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:28:30 +0000 From: Minimiscience To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: What's in a name? Message-ID: <20090114182828.GA12097@sdf.lonestar.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: SDF Public Access UNIX System User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 1192 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: minimiscience@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners de'i li 14 pi'e 01 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Jameson Orndorff .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra. > So, how is this properly interpreted? Is this 'belief in speech', 'speech > about belief', or 'belief of a certain kind of speech'? .skamyxatra The {tanru} "{krici bacru}" means "belief-type-of-speech" or "speech-of-type-belief." The exact interpretation of a {tanru} is always semantically ambiguous & can vary from one instance to the next. When a {tanru} is made into a single word (a {lujvo}), the person creating the {lujvo} is usually the one who assigns an explicit meaning to it; if this meaning is not readily available to the audience, they may misinterpret the word. Yes, this may seem highly un-Lojbanic, but it's practically impossible to achieve complete semantic unambiguity in any language without either severely limiting the set of possible expressions or else requiring overly verbose strings of words to express simple thoughts. > When kribacru is converted to a name, does that imply that it is 'someone who > does', i.e. a 'speaker of truth' or is there no implication of it being a > person who engages up on the act of 'kribacr'? Names are just names, labels assigned to people for referring to them by. A name implies nothing about the one who has it; you may be a speaker of truth, or you may be a pathological liar who was given an ironic nickname. You could even be a walking advertisement for Lojban Djos' Truth Serum (now with extra truthiness!). Names have no semantic implications -- except for my name. mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun. -- loi jetnu ka'e bartu .ije ku'i loi jitfa cu nenri lo stedu be do