Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of betsemes@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.182;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <51A38E6B.7080107@gmx.de>
References: <CAHxnAmJvBZ1_4S1OF45n3dd5g2iQmFEGiQbsyBTN6PwybsNkrA@mail.gmail.com>
	<51A379EF.3020803@gmx.de>
	<CAHxnAm+HZGvy=Ck9nvogsR_uHL=+BYPho6vDKe8WGp-H4xKmEA@mail.gmail.com>
	<51A38E6B.7080107@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 07:03:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHxnAm+FnkKPHvna1kUO4Hh3Hz6c7_h-fzZVQK16=cz2w2dnvw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla
From: Betsemes <betsemes@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.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
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:48 PM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:
>> 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)

I know. The examples I used were not intended to be the real people
that populate this list, but fictional characters bearing those names.
I might have used any brivla combination for that example and that
would not make any practical difference.

> 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.

The argument is fatally flawed because that's not the real world
usage. That's a completely different usage from what is in use. As the
lojban naming system is currently defined, the naming system used on
latin american countries is impossible.

> 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.

I actually wouldn't call it a "merge" since cmevla and brivla are word
types/classes so defined by just their form. They  will continue being
so after the "merge". The issue is redefining cmevla so that they may
be used as selbri (well, I called the thread "cmevla as a class of
brivla" by just copying the subject from another thread, it should
have been "cmevla as selbri"). "betsemes" would be defined as "me la
betsemes", so that your ugly example would be rewritten as {la broda
betsemes selpa'i}. By writing it this way, we would be actually
following Latin American naming conventions. But I'm sure you already
know it. You know far more than I might even remotely aspire to in
terms of linguistics (just an observation, no flattery intended).

mu'o mi'e betsemes

-- 
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.