Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.215 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.215;
Message-ID: <51A6685C.3010505@lojban.org>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 16:43:08 -0400
From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
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: 0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 1
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has
 identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
 has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  Betsemes wrote: > 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, > 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 me take some cmevla and
    brivla used as names within this list. > > betsemes > solvor > camgusmis
   > xorxes [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.1 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED          ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
                             See
                             http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
                              for more information.
                             [URIs: gmx.de]
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
  0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID         DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid

Betsemes wrote:
> 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,
> 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 me take some cmevla and brivla used as names within this list.
>
> betsemes
> solvor
> camgusmis
> xorxes

These are cmene

> arxokuna
> selpa'i
> gleki
> tsani

These are brivla used as "nicknames".  All sorts of words are used as 
nicknames in English, but they are not really "names".  Presumably no 
one would be given a nickname as their legal name, if Lojban were ever 
adopted as a legal language.

> 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.

The naming system to be used in a hypothetical Lojban-speaking society 
cannot be determined.  No doubt it would abide by the language 
conventions of the tie.


> Let's say "la gleki arxokuna" marries "la selpa'i tsani".

But in a Lojban society, those would not be their legal names, because 
they are not cmene.  At the very least, they would be Lojbanized into 
cmene to make "real" names.


> Oops. What should we do with them? Do we forbid them
> to marry because the child's name violates the language naming rules?
>
> They should be allowed to marry and name their child "la rod solvor
> tsani" or "la broda solvor tsani" if they wish. If the language does
> not support this naming system, is not the fault of the country's
> naming system. It means the language naming system is broken.

No.  It means that the people who are doing the naming don't want to 
follow the rules of the language.

lojbab

-- 
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.