Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.21 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.21;
Message-ID: <51A38E6B.7080107@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 18:48:43 +0200
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla
References: <CAHxnAmJvBZ1_4S1OF45n3dd5g2iQmFEGiQbsyBTN6PwybsNkrA@mail.gmail.com> <51A379EF.3020803@gmx.de> <CAHxnAm+HZGvy=Ck9nvogsR_uHL=+BYPho6vDKe8WGp-H4xKmEA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHxnAm+HZGvy=Ck9nvogsR_uHL=+BYPho6vDKe8WGp-H4xKmEA@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

la .betsemes. cu cusku di'e
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:21 AM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:
>> For me, the Merge is actually even more important than the GIJA reform.
>
> This is a topic that has frustrated me to no end since the beginning.
> By the time of the quoted thread where Robin said the system was not
> broken, I had no argument to counter, yet the topic has haunted me
> every single time I come back to Lojban.
>
>> It'd be nice to hear what others think, but my hopes aren't too high,
>> although realistically I feel it's inevitable in the long run. Off the top
>> of my head, I know of around 5 people who are in favor (excluding xorxes),
>> and the current authorities all seem opposed.
>
> I've been recently thinking a lot on a fictional lojban-talking world,

I do this a lot in order to see where Lojban is or should be heading. I 
try to imagine it being used like a real language, and usually that 
shows me where the biggest holes are or where problems lie.

> and the topic of naming is one I had to deal with. I concluded the
> system is broken for those countries where two surnames are used to
> name an individual.
> [...]
>
> Let's say "la betsemes solvor" wants to marry "la xorxes camgusmis". A
> child may be called "la rod solvor camgusmis", name: rod, first
> surname: solvor, second surname: camgusmis. That naming system is what
> is being used in my country.
>
> Let's say "la gleki arxokuna" [...]

(Note that la gleki == la .arxokuna, he should probably make his name 
change more obvious)

> But what happens whether "la betsemes solvor" wants to marry "la
> selpa'i tsani"? Oops. What should we do with them? Do we forbid them
> to marry because the child's name violates the language naming rules?

You'd have to call them something like {la broda me la .betsemes. 
selpa'i}. It's very ugly, but because there is a way to make it work, 
it's not broken, just inconvenient. Or so goes the argument.

Of course "not broken" isn't the same as "cannot be improved". The Merge 
would mean a great simplification (in a good way) of the language.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.