Received: from mail-ee0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]:40642) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1S4ij5-00019z-Cz; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:58:07 -0800 Received: by eeke50 with SMTP id e50sf4517040eek.16 for ; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:57:55 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhCQwtX6BBoE7iuOUg@googlegroups.com designates 10.205.127.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.205.127.67; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhCQwtX6BBoE7iuOUg@googlegroups.com designates 10.205.127.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhCQwtX6BBoE7iuOUg@googlegroups.com; dkim=pass header.i=lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhCQwtX6BBoE7iuOUg@googlegroups.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.205.127.67]) by 10.205.127.67 with SMTP id gz3mr6494263bkc.11.1330995475942 (num_hops = 1); Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:57:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=/M/p4a0ZbxtUPOuNK0v7LfhXPHq62fstxQnImnmzIV4=; b=ZUVayvKF+OaJJdlYgl9p8/CGlnWEfpyJPTnTusCMWLPe35nLuYn4Zz8nVtGq+2VgES hr6xaHy9vUTgc6b6ED2KGHbU7u6kNJ00CBNht4JR5VKQ1lxGoRBB2ypUrQynHXx9Bpy/ S/F16cgfZRg76S7aZnOOC/exaHTZUVMoKSS4I= Received: by 10.205.127.67 with SMTP id gz3mr1921533bkc.11.1330995472126; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:57:52 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.154.4 with SMTP id m4ls7696468bkw.1.gmail; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:57:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.131.75 with SMTP id w11mr1771760bks.0.1330995470481; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:57:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.131.75 with SMTP id w11mr1771759bks.0.1330995470456; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:57:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f42.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f42.google.com [209.85.215.42]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l17si19823416bkb.1.2012.03.05.16.57.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:57:50 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.42; Received: by mail-lpp01m010-f42.google.com with SMTP id l5so12656996lah.1 for ; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:57:50 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 10.112.103.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.112.103.8; Received: from mr.google.com ([10.112.103.8]) by 10.112.103.8 with SMTP id fs8mr10219560lbb.39.1330995470325 (num_hops = 1); Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:57:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.103.8 with SMTP id fs8mr8321188lbb.39.1330995470250; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:57:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.152.148.225 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Mar 2012 16:57:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <201203051455.00186.phma@phma.optus.nu> References: <201203050232.47562.phma@phma.optus.nu> <201203051455.00186.phma@phma.optus.nu> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 17:57:50 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] What's the deal with me'ispe and bunspe? From: Jonathan Jones To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.42 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0401fa8d33b2d104ba888806 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / --f46d0401fa8d33b2d104ba888806 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Pierre Abbat wrote: > On Monday, March 05, 2012 03:30:58 Jonathan Jones wrote: > > The problem is that it is the gender of the married person that is take= n > > into account, not the gender of the person being spoken of. Whether I a= m > a > > brother-in-law or a sister-in-law has nothing to do with the gender of = my > > married sibling. > > > > Also, why does it matter which of the two is the married one? If Man1 > > marries Woman1 who has a brother Man2, Man2 is Man1's brother-in-law, a= nd > > Man1 is Man2's brother-in-law. If Man1 also has a biological or adopted > > brother Man3, then Man2 and Man3 are also each other's brothers-in-law, > > even if neither of them are married. > > > > If any sibling from family A marries any sibling from family B, then > every > > sibling in family A is a sibling-in-law to every sibling in family B, > > except for the two who are married, as they are spouses, not > > siblings-in-law. > > You seem to be unacquainted with different kinship term systems. Inlaws > zo'u, > Lojban is descriptive, whereas English is classificatory. There are some > languages in which different terms for "cousin" are used depending on > whether > their parents are siblings of the same sex or of different sexes. There's > no > reason why Lojban should use the same system as English. > Actually, I can think of one reason for using a classification system. The brother of a man married to a woman with a sister is said sister's brother-in-law. "A is B's brother-in-law" is much simpler than "A is the brother of the husband of the sister of B". That said, who says we need to have only one or the other? I am sure there will be times where a descriptive label is a better choice than a classification label, and vice-versa. At this point in time, Lojban doesn't really have either, and is capable of having both, so I see no reason not to have both systems. > I don't know enough of Hindi, Chinese, or Arabic to say anything about > their > kinship terms, but I do know some Spanish and Russian. Both languages > preserve > some in-law terms inherited from Indo-European. Russian is more > descriptive, > Spanish more classificatory. > Spanish has: > nuera: daughter-in-law > lo ninmu goi ko'a tixnu ko'e ki'u lodu'u lo ko'a se lanzu cu speni lo ko'e se rirni .i ko'a ti'uspe ko'e > yerno: son-in-law > lo nanmu goi ko'a bersa ko'e ki'u lodu'u lo ko'a se lanzu cu speni lo ko'e se rirni .i ko'a be'aspe ko'e > cu=C3=B1ado, cu=C3=B1ada: brother-in-law, sister-in-law (in both directio= ns) > lo nanmu goi ko'a bruna ko'e lodu'u lo ko'a se lanzu cu speni lo ko'e se lanzu to ko'a na speni ko'e toi .i ko'a bunspe ko'e lo ninmu goi ko'a mensi ko'e lodu'u lo ko'a se lanzu cu speni lo ko'e se lanzu to ko'a na speni ko'e toi .i ko'a me'ispe ko'e lo prenu goi ko'a tunba ko'e lodu'u lo ko'a se lanzu cu speni lo ko'e se lanzu to ko'a na speni ko'e toi .i ko'a tubyspe ko'e > suegro, suegra: father-in-law, mother-in-law > lo nanmu goi ko'a patfu ko'e ki'u lodu'u lo ko'a se rirni cu speni lo ko'e se lanzu .i ko'a pafspe ko'e lo ninmu goi ko'a mamta ko'e ki'u lodu'u lo ko'a se rirni cu speni lo ko'e se lanzu .i ko'a mamyspe ko'e lo prenu goi ko'a rirni ko'e ki'u lodu'u lo ko'a se rirni cu speni lo ko'e se lanzu .i ko'a rirspe ko'e > Russian has: > =D1=81=D0=BD=D0=BE=D1=85=D0=B0: a man's son's wife > lo ninmu goi ko'a fetspe lo bersa be lo nanmu goi ko'e .i ko'a fetspebe'a ko'e ? =D0=B7=D1=8F=D1=82=D1=8C: daughter's husband > lo nanmu goi ko'a nakspe lo tixnu be ko'e .i ko'a nakspeti'u ko'e ? =D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=B2=D0=B5=D1=80=D1=8C: husband's brother > lo nanmu goi ko'a bruna lo nakspe be ko'e .i ko'a bunynakspe ko'e ? > =D1=81=D0=B2=D1=91=D0=BA=D0=BE=D1=80: husband's father > lo nanmu goi ko'a patfu lo nakspe be ko'e .i ko'a pafnakspe ko'e ? > =D1=82=D0=B5=D1=81=D1=82=D1=8C: wife's father > lo nanmu goi ko'a patfu lo fetspe be ko'e .i ko'a pafyfetspe ko'e ? > Cognates: > =D1=81=D0=BD=D0=BE=D1=85=D0=B0=3Dnuera (and Old English snoru, lost in Mo= dern English) > =D0=B7=D1=8F=D1=82=D1=8C=3Dyerno > =D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=B2=D0=B5=D1=80=D1=8C (Latin levir, lost in Spanish) > =D1=81=D0=B2=D1=91=D0=BA=D0=BE=D1=80=3Dsuegro (and Old English sweor, los= t in Modern English). > > Pierre > -- > gau do li'i co'e kei do > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. > > --=20 mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den. --f46d0401fa8d33b2d104ba888806 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.n= u> wrote:
On Monday, March 05, 2012 03:30:58 Jonathan Jones wrote:<= br> > The problem is that it is the gender of the married person that is tak= en
> into account, not the gender of the person being spoken of. Whether I = am a
> brother-in-law or a sister-in-law has nothing to do with the gender of= my
> married sibling.
>
> Also, why does it matter which of the two is the married one? If Man1<= br> > marries Woman1 who has a brother Man2, Man2 is Man1's brother-in-l= aw, and
> Man1 is Man2's brother-in-law. If Man1 also has a biological or ad= opted
> brother Man3, then Man2 and Man3 are also each other's brothers-in= -law,
> even if neither of them are married.
>
> If any sibling from family A marries any sibling from family B, then e= very
> sibling in family A is a sibling-in-law to every sibling in family B,<= br> > except for the two who are married, as they are spouses, not
> siblings-in-law.

You seem to be unacquainted with different kinship term systems. Inla= ws zo'u,
Lojban is descriptive, whereas English is classificatory. There are some languages in which different terms for "cousin" are used dependin= g on whether
their parents are siblings of the same sex or of different sexes. There'= ;s no
reason why Lojban should use the same system as English.

Actually, I can think of one reason for using a classification syste= m.

The brother of a man married to a woman with a sister is said sis= ter's brother-in-law.

"A is B's brother-in-law" is much simpler than "A is= the brother of the husband of the sister of B".

That said, who= says we need to have only one or the other? I am sure there will be times = where a descriptive label is a better choice than a classification label, a= nd vice-versa. At this point in time, Lojban doesn't really have either= , and is capable of having both, so I see no reason not to have both system= s.
=C2=A0
I don't know enough of Hindi, Chinese, or Arabic to say anything about = their
kinship terms, but I do know some Spanish and Russian. Both languages prese= rve
some in-law terms inherited from Indo-European. Russian is more descriptive= ,
Spanish more classificatory.
=C2=A0
Spanish has:
nuera: daughter-in-law
lo ninmu goi ko'a tixnu ko&= #39;e ki'u lodu'u lo ko'a se lanzu cu speni lo ko'e se rirn= i
.i ko'a ti'uspe ko'e
=C2=A0
yerno: son-in-law
lo nanmu goi ko'a bersa ko'e= ki'u lodu'u lo ko'a se lanzu cu speni lo ko'e se rirni
= .i ko'a be'aspe ko'e
=C2=A0
cu=C3=B1ado, cu=C3=B1ada: brother-in-law, sister-in-law (in both directions= )
lo nanmu goi ko'a bruna ko'e lodu'u lo k= o'a se lanzu cu speni lo ko'e se lanzu to ko'a na speni ko'= e toi
.i ko'a bunspe ko'e

lo ninmu goi ko'a mensi ko'e lod= u'u lo ko'a se lanzu cu speni lo ko'e se lanzu to ko'a na s= peni ko'e toi
.i ko'a me'ispe ko'e

lo prenu goi k= o'a tunba ko'e lodu'u lo ko'a se lanzu cu speni lo ko'e= se lanzu to ko'a na speni ko'e toi
.i ko'a tubyspe ko'e
=C2=A0
suegro, suegra: father-in-law, mother-in-law
lo nanmu = goi ko'a patfu ko'e ki'u lodu'u lo ko'a se rirni cu spe= ni lo ko'e se lanzu
.i ko'a pafspe ko'e

lo ninmu goi ko'a mamta ko'e ki'u lodu'u lo ko'a se= rirni cu speni lo ko'e se lanzu
.i ko'a mamyspe ko'e

lo prenu goi ko'a rirni ko'e ki'u lodu'u lo ko'a se= rirni cu speni lo ko'e se lanzu
.i ko'a rirspe ko'e
=C2=A0
Russian has:
=D1=81=D0=BD=D0=BE=D1=85=D0=B0: a man's son's wife
=
lo ninmu goi ko'a fetspe lo bersa be lo nanmu goi ko'e
.i k= o'a fetspebe'a ko'e ?

=D0=B7=D1=8F=D1=82=D1=8C: daughter's husband
lo na= nmu goi ko'a nakspe lo tixnu be ko'e
.i ko'a nakspeti'u = ko'e ?

=D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=B2=D0=B5=D1=80=D1=8C: husband's brother
lo nanmu goi ko'a bruna lo nakspe be ko'e
.i ko'a buny= nakspe ko'e ?
=C2=A0
=D1=81=D0=B2=D1=91=D0=BA=D0=BE=D1=80: husband's father
=
lo nanmu goi ko'a patfu lo nakspe be ko'e
.i ko'a pafna= kspe ko'e ?
=C2=A0
=D1=82=D0=B5=D1=81=D1=82=D1=8C: wife's father
lo n= anmu goi ko'a patfu lo fetspe be ko'e
.i ko'a pafyfetspe ko&= #39;e ?
=C2=A0
Cognates:
=D1=81=D0=BD=D0=BE=D1=85=D0=B0=3Dnuera (and Old English snoru, lost in Mode= rn English)
=D0=B7=D1=8F=D1=82=D1=8C=3Dyerno
=D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=B2=D0=B5=D1=80=D1=8C (Latin levir, lost in Spanish)
=D1=81=D0=B2=D1=91=D0=BA=D0=BE=D1=80=3Dsuegro (and Old English sweor, lost = in Modern English).

Pierre
--
gau do li'i co'e kei do

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.




--
mu'o mi= 'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.l= uk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. = :D )

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--f46d0401fa8d33b2d104ba888806--