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: <51A86A94.5070808@lojban.org>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 05:17:08 -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> <51A6685C.3010505@lojban.org> <CAHxnAmL+Nrb0WSqrZtUhHuNwFpekZOg9w4dBp5AfdECnUwNPmQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHxnAmL+Nrb0WSqrZtUhHuNwFpekZOg9w4dBp5AfdECnUwNPmQ@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: /

Betsemes wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> And what make nicknames and real names different? Nothing. The only
> difference is that a nickname is not the person's legal name. If
> Lojban would become mainstream, people very well may attempt to name a
> child with a brivla.

People can attempt to do all sorts of things.  Whether others choose to 
accept those things is also a matter of choice.

People can start using Lojban with all sorts of what we would consider 
to be ungrammatical modifications.  We can't stop them from doing so. 
That doesn't make them right to do so.

>> 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.
>
> No doubt it would IF it's adopted. But mount enough "inconvenient"
> rules on a language and it will remain to be a nice geeky toy and
> nothing more.

Are the rules merely "inconvenient"? Or do they actually have a purpose?

> The rules of the language clearly allows for brivla to
> be used for naming,

and lots of other things which are permitted but not encouraged.

If I start talking about the "number" papi'epaini'upi, the language 
allows for that as a legal construct.  But anyone who uses it will 
simply be stared at, or more likely ignored.

In the case of brivla used as names, in fact they seldom are used in the 
manner of a Lojban brivla, as predicates with full and manipulable place 
structures.  Using a brivla NOT as a predicate is not Lojbanic.

> so people may consider them as an alternative. The
> current naming rules make the language impractical.

It is quite practical.  It just offends some people who don't like rules.

> Lojbanistan as it is now, is only fiction

It always will be; I see no path for it to become "real".

lo jboce'u, on the other hand is real even now.

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.