Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.216 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.216;
Message-ID: <51A8680E.7040103@lojban.org>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 05:06:22 -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> <51A6685C.3010505@lojban.org> <CAMKwHj3gpou-t-6wPOLP7TCXdGhVGU2z+H-z4g=yGJK8Yg2gEg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMKwHj3gpou-t-6wPOLP7TCXdGhVGU2z+H-z4g=yGJK8Yg2gEg@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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

This post seems to get right to the point. .i'e

Jonathan Jones wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org
> <mailto:lojbab@lojban.org>> wrote:
>
>     Betsemes wrote:
>
>         <snip>
>         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.
>
>
> I find this hard to reconcile. Why is .camgusmis., which we all know is
> not Robin's given name, not a nickname, but tsani is?

Because we defined it that way.

A cmene has a consonant on the end.

We allowed for the possibility of using a brivla description in lieu of=20
a name as an accommodation of natlangs that use ordinary words as names=20
- the example we generally used was "Bear" Bryant, one time football=20
coach.  A brivla used as a name is thus akin to fu'ivla - legal in=20
Lojban, but "second-class".  We would have expected someone adopting=20
"tsani" into a Lojban name to add a consonant, UNLESS the nickname was a=20
translation from another language.

An even better example would be the use of actual descriptions as names=20
in some languages (I am thinking of Amerind languages in particular,=20
names like "Sitting Bull" or "Running with the Deer").  Converting these=20
to cmene forms might be possible, but might lose some meaningful=20
structure in doing so.

Alas, people have chosen to be far more anarchic with regards to name=20
selection than we intended.  I'm not sure that this is a good thing -=20
the morphological distinctiveness of cmene, fu'ivla and other word=20
categories aids in learning, and encourages people to think about=20
morphology (which is vital for other aspects of the language), which is=20
not something English speakers tend to do very much.

> Is it simply because one if a cmene and the other is only a cmevla?

One is a cmene, and the other is a brivla being used to call someone by=20
description.  "cmevla" means nothing to me as a concept.

> What about the dog named Bear? Would calling him la cribe when speaking
> in Lojban not be calling him by name, but by nickname? We have to call
> him la.cribes. to call him by name?

If you are translating the English word "Bear", you might very well call=20
him "cribe", but categorically, doing so is translating the English=20
rather than giving him a Lojban name.

> It seems odd to me to allow the usage of such constructs as la tsani, la
> gleki, etc., but disallow naming ourselves or others with them, and I
> don't like it.

We allowed lots of things to accommodate possible natural language=20
habits, in part because we wanted to allow non-English patterns a chance=20
to enter the language despite the very few non-English speakers in the=20
beginning.

I admire when someone creatively mimics a non-Lojban style using the=20
full resources of the language, but the non-standardness of such a style=20
itself marks it as being atypical Lojban.

When I first ran into tsani's name, I presumed that it was a translation=20
of his natlang name or nickname.  I don't in fact know that this is not=20
the case.

> The whole reason many jbopre call themselves with cmevla
> is precisely because how outcast cmene are: must always be preceded
> /and/ followed by a glottal stop, must always end in a consonant, and
> may not have meaning- although they may be reflective of words that do.

And the Lojbanic philosophy was that this is the way that it should be.=20
  Names aren't brivla, and if a brivla is used as a name, it suggests=20
involvement of all the places of that brivla.  I have no idea what tsani=20
considers to be the x1 and x2 of his brivla name, but those places are=20
inherent to the word choice.

And the existence of predicate place structures for each and every=20
brivla is about as fundamental a principle for Lojban as there could be.

A brivla description used as a name (marked with la or used vocatively=20
with doi) should have a full place structure.

A cmene on the other hand, has no place structure.  It is just a label.

> This whole cmevla->brivla push seems to me to be an effort to make cmene
> less outcast, more useful.

And as I see it, it is destroying the concept of Lojban as a=20
logical-predicate language.  I don't see anything "useful" about=20
treating a cmene as if it had a place structure, unless you are=20
meaningfully going to use that place structure.

> Personally, I think that cmene are better for foreign names, like
> la.par=EDs., but I like the idea of natively naming our own stuff with
> cmevla. When speaking in Lojban, I like {la jbogu'e} better than
> {la.lojbanistan.},

la lojbanistan has no places.  It is a label for something, which we can=20
further identify with relative clauses if it is unclear.  If we want to=20
add the places of gugde, we can do so with la lojbanistan noi gugde ...

jbogu'e is a brivla that implicitly invokes a people and a territory.=20
It is not a name.  Using it as a name without bearing in mind that it=20
has a particular place structure is making the word meaningless (or more=20
likely just invoking the keyword translation in a malrarna way).

"la jbogu'e" still has that place structure, as does la tsani have its=20
own.  Lojban simply doesn't work without place structures.

If I saw people making use of place structures in their brivla names, I=20
might be more sympathetic.  But they don't, and I suspect that=20
absolutely no one thinks about the x2 of tsani when they use that as his=20
name.

>I like {la jbobau} better than {la.lojban.}, and so
> on. It just feels more natural, which I know isn't much of an argument.

It's aesthetics, and as a natlang native speaker, your aesthetics are=20
suspect.

But until and unless you attach places to jbobau, and bear in mind that=20
those places are present even when they are left unspecified, you aren't=20
speaking a predicate language.

> Also, all names were originally a description of the person in the
> language of that people. All of them. Some still are, like in Japanese
> names and other Asian tongues. Using cmene means divorcing names even
> further from their meaning, and I don't like that idea at all.

In Lojban, unlike natlangs, "meaning" requires predication.

> Very few people today- that aren't Jewish- know that "Jonathan" is
> Jewish for {lo se dunda be lo cevni}

I notice that you used "lo" and not "la cevni", which would be more=20
correct.  Lojbanically it would have to be "la se dunda (be fi zo'e) be=20
la cevni be la xebro bei roda" and using those words one would=20
implicitly understand it as a gift to some particular recipients, and=20
one would not understand it as a transaction requiring payment.  The=20
natural language origins of this etymology start breaking down when one=20
thinks about who the gift is for, and that God intended the "gift" to be=20
transactional (canja) for some form of worship.

More important, a lot of people, especially those who aren't Jewish,=20
nowadays are named "Jonathan" with no implication of any gift from any=20
particular God.  The etymology may be interesting, but it is meaningless=20
to how the name is actually used.

In lojban, someone called la seldunda be la cevni has all that meaning,=20
and thus most people named Jonathan should probably not want their name=20
translated that way.

> and it's Lojbanization of
> {la.djanatyn.} would be even worse off, because the meaning would be
> stripped.

What's wrong with that, since the meaning is not used linguistically?=20
It's a fossil or a time when perhaps names had more descriptive nature,=20
and/or it is a preserved habit of people who don't think in predicates.

>I'll grant I don't know any people that would name their
> children {la cevyseldu'a}, but then again, I only know one jbopre with
> kids, and they're both girls.

And why couldn't a girl be called "la cevyseldu'a".  Doesn't God give=20
girls as a gift?  On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with=20
claiming that la.djanatyn. is typically a boy's name.

> My point is, I think that the meaning is important- and I realize that
> calling myself .aionys. doesn't live up to that, being as it's a
> meaningless Lojbanization of my online nickname. Honestly, my only
> reason for keeping .aionys. is that I've had it for so long everyone
> knows me by it, and I honestly have no idea what descriptive name I'd
> give myself anyway, being the uncreative person I am, in contrast to la
> stela selckiku, la selpa'i, la tsani, etc.

Personally, I wished that they used Lojbanizations of their real names.=20
  I think I personally started losing track of the community when I=20
could no longer connect the Lojbanic handles to real people with real=20
names.  If you post as .aionys., I simply will not connect you to the=20
one who posts as "Jonathan Jones", and I have absolutely no idea who=20
stela selckiku, selpa'i, and tsani are in real life (even if I may have=20
met them at a Logfest, I wouldn't remember).

I've thought of the Lojbanic "cmevla" as you call them as being somewhat=20
akin to Internet handles, which are sometimes identifying, but as often=20
as not are obscuring of the real identity.  I didn't choose to call=20
myself "lojbab".  People started calling me that, and they weren't=20
Lojbanists, and it became how I was most commonly known.  It was also=20
useful because at the time there were more than one "Bob" active in the=20
community. But there is no real meaning, and hence no predication, and=20
thus I can have all kinds of fun with the fact that I have nothing to do=20
with logical-soap, whatever that would be.

> I mean, what would be the cmene for {la dansu kansa be lo labno}?

That would in fact be an example of a description being used=20
legitimately as a name (not having seen the movie, so I don't know how=20
well it applies), since it invokes a predication, which can be=20
manipulated linguistically using the tools of Lojban as can any predication=
.

I believe that some languages that use descriptions as names do indeed=20
manipulate them linguistically.  But I'm hard pressed to think of an=20
example at the moment. In standard English, on the other hand, names are=20
just labels; any meaning is incidental, and a name like "Dances with=20
Wolves" or even "Bear" Bryant stands out as being non-standard.

lojbab

--=20
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 e=
mail 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=3Den.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.