Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::235 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::235;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <51A8680E.7040103@lojban.org>
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>
	<51A8680E.7040103@lojban.org>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 06:14:36 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMKwHj3+aWwW0E3QP271aRNP8oKMy9hNDipjypX6hhJkauM+_A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla
From: Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@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: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160a6f4fe3f7e04de028e40
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--089e0160a6f4fe3f7e04de028e40
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thank you for your response. Your reasonings are clearly well-considered.

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>wrot=
e:

> 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 a
> name as an accommodation of natlangs that use ordinary words as names - t=
he
> example we generally used was "Bear" Bryant, one time football coach.  A
> brivla used as a name is thus akin to fu'ivla - legal in Lojban, but
> "second-class".  We would have expected someone adopting "tsani" into a
> Lojban name to add a consonant, UNLESS the nickname was a translation fro=
m
> another language.
>
> An even better example would be the use of actual descriptions as names i=
n
> some languages (I am thinking of Amerind languages in particular, names
> like "Sitting Bull" or "Running with the Deer").  Converting these to cme=
ne
> forms might be possible, but might lose some meaningful structure in doin=
g
> so.
>
> Alas, people have chosen to be far more anarchic with regards to name
> selection than we intended.  I'm not sure that this is a good thing - the
> morphological distinctiveness of cmene, fu'ivla and other word categories
> aids in learning, and encourages people to think about morphology (which =
is
> vital for other aspects of the language), which is 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
> 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
> him "cribe", but categorically, doing so is translating the English rathe=
r
> than giving him a Lojban name.


I was thinking of the dog I've read about in some Lojban texts who was
called {la cribe} because his English name was "Bear", and his English name
was "Bear" due to his owner thinking he bore a striking resemblance to one.
I would assume had this jbopre been a native speaker of Lojban, this
resemblance would have caused the dog to be named {la cribe} by his owner
directly, and not merely as a translation of the English.

 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 habits,
> in part because we wanted to allow non-English patterns a chance to enter
> the language despite the very few non-English speakers in the beginning.
>
> I admire when someone creatively mimics a non-Lojban style using the full
> resources of the language, but the non-standardness of such a style itsel=
f
> marks it as being atypical Lojban.
>
> When I first ran into tsani's name, I presumed that it was a translation
> of his natlang name or nickname.  I don't in fact know that this is not t=
he
> case.


Neither do I. I do believe that la selpa'i is a direct translation, however=
.

 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.
>  Names aren't brivla, and if a brivla is used as a name, it suggests
> involvement of all the places of that brivla.  I have no idea what tsani
> considers to be the x1 and x2 of his brivla name, but those places are
> inherent to the word choice.
>
> And the existence of predicate place structures for each and every 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
> with doi) should have a full place structure.
>
> A cmene on the other hand, has no place structure.  It is just a label.


Agreed. I don't think anyone is wants to remove the place structure from
cmevla- "brivla used as names". In fact, since the cmevla->brivla proposal
would have the effect of making {<name>} =3D=3D {me la<name>}, I think the
desire is precisely the opposite. As far as my own opinion on the matter, I
can see both benefits and disadvantages to it, so withholding judgement at
this point.

 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
> logical-predicate language.  I don't see anything "useful" about treating=
 a
> cmene as if it had a place structure, unless you are meaningfully going t=
o
> use that place structure.


With the default place structure, I don't see any real "meaningful" use,
other than to remove to words {me la} from bridi in which they are used.
IIRC, however, the proposal allows for defining a unique place structure,
in much the way lujvo and fu'ivla are, and that obviously would make those
cmene which are meaningful use- although I do see it as a potential for
lazy word-crafting, since why would anyone define a lujvo/fu'ivla for
"unicorn" when they could just say {.unicorn.} and give /it/ the place
structure of {pavyseljirna}?

 Personally, I think that cmene are better for foreign names, like
> la.par=C3=ADs., 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
> further identify with relative clauses if it is unclear.  If we want to a=
dd
> 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. It
> is not a name.  Using it as a name without bearing in mind that it has a
> particular place structure is making the word meaningless (or more likely
> just invoking the keyword translation in a malrarna way).
>
> "la jbogu'e" still has that place structure, as does la tsani have its
> own.  Lojban simply doesn't work without place structures.
>

Yes of course, and I don't use {la jbogu'e} with the intent of removing
those implicit places. The fact that when I say {la jbogu'e} without them
does not mean I am not aware that I implicitly filling them with {zo'e}.


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

Granted.


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


I honestly don't think that's a problem for any of us.

 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.


Well, yes, but it doesn't require predicates to be explicitly filled.

 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 correct=
.


I used lo because I was translating the meaning- as a word, not as a
name=E3=80=81but I don't think that really matters wrt this discussion.


> Lojbanically it would have to be "la se dunda (be fi zo'e) be la cevni be
> la xebro bei roda" and using those words one would implicitly understand =
it
> as a gift to some particular recipients, and one would not understand it =
as
> a transaction requiring payment.  The natural language origins of this
> etymology start breaking down when one thinks about who the gift is for,
> and that God intended the "gift" to be transactional (canja) for some for=
m
> of worship.
>
> More important, a lot of people, especially those who aren't Jewish,
> nowadays are named "Jonathan" with no implication of any gift from any
> particular God.  The etymology may be interesting, but it is meaningless =
to
> how the name is actually used.
>
> In lojban, someone called la seldunda be la cevni has all that meaning,
> and thus most people named Jonathan should probably not want their name
> translated that way.


I wouldn't mind, myself. I don't use the transliteration or translation of
my given name purely because I don't much care for it, which is why I went
with .aionys.

 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? It's
> a fossil or a time when perhaps names had more descriptive nature, and/or
> it is a preserved habit of people who don't think in predicates.


Again, aesthetic opinion: what's wrong with it is /that/ the meaning is not
used linguistically. I like the idea of names having meaning, like they do
in Asian and aboriginal languages (and probably others). (I should note
that by aboriginal I mean all the "primitive" peoples, who I believe all
use descriptive names, and in many cases require some kind of naming ritual
to attain adulthood.)

 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 girls
> as a gift?  On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with claiming that
> la.djanatyn. is typically a boy's name.


I was trying to make a joke there, actually. We haven't really made any
kind of decisions on which cmene are girl's name and which are boy's, and I
don't want to be the one that starts that discussion.

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

That's fine. I'm absolutely horrible with names as well, but at least in
the context of these groups, I go by what people sign their messages with,
not by the tag their email provider gives me.


> I've thought of the Lojbanic "cmevla" as you call them as being somewhat
> akin to Internet handles, which are sometimes identifying, but as often a=
s
> not are obscuring of the real identity.  I didn't choose to call myself
> "lojbab".  People started calling me that, and they weren't Lojbanists, a=
nd
> it became how I was most commonly known.  It was also useful because at t=
he
> time there were more than one "Bob" active in the community. But there is
> no real meaning, and hence no predication, and thus I can have all kinds =
of
> fun with the fact that I have nothing to do 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 legitimately
> as a name (not having seen the movie, so I don't know how well it applies=
),
> since it invokes a predication, which can be manipulated linguistically
> using the tools of Lojban as can any predication.
>

Let me make sure I'm understanding this correctly. What you're saying is,
if a person was named something like the above, you would consider it a
name, even though it is not a cmene?


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


>
> lojbab
>

Right. My desire is that we do not do what English does. My preference is
that we do not treat Lojbanic names as "just labels", that we should name
our places, things, people, etc., with names that /do/ have meaning, like
"Sitting Bear" and so on.

--=20
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

--=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.


--089e0160a6f4fe3f7e04de028e40
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">Thank you for your response. Your reasonings are=
 clearly well-considered.<br><br>On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Robert Le=
Chevalier <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:lojbab@lojban.org" target=
=3D"_blank">lojbab@lojban.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">This post seems to get right to the point. .=
i&#39;e<br>
<br>
Jonathan Jones wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"im">
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Robert LeChevalier &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:l=
ojbab@lojban.org" target=3D"_blank">lojbab@lojban.org</a><br></div><div cla=
ss=3D"im">
&lt;mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:lojbab@lojban.org" target=3D"_blank">lojbab@lo=
jban.org</a>&gt;&gt; wrote:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Betsemes wrote:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 &lt;snip&gt;<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 betsemes<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 solvor<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 camgusmis<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 xorxes<br>
<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 These are cmene<br>
<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 arxokuna<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 selpa&#39;i<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 gleki<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 tsani<br>
<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 These are brivla used as &quot;nicknames&quot;. =C2=A0All sor=
ts of words are used<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 as nicknames in English, but they are not really &quot;names&=
quot;.<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Presumably no one would be given a nickname as their l=
egal name,<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 if Lojban were ever adopted as a legal language.<br>
<br>
<br>
I find this hard to reconcile. Why is .camgusmis., which we all know is<br>
not Robin&#39;s given name, not a nickname, but tsani is?<br>
</div></blockquote>
<br>
Because we defined it that way.<br>
<br>
A cmene has a consonant on the end.<br>
<br>
We allowed for the possibility of using a brivla description in lieu of a n=
ame as an accommodation of natlangs that use ordinary words as names - the =
example we generally used was &quot;Bear&quot; Bryant, one time football co=
ach. =C2=A0A brivla used as a name is thus akin to fu&#39;ivla - legal in L=
ojban, but &quot;second-class&quot;. =C2=A0We would have expected someone a=
dopting &quot;tsani&quot; into a Lojban name to add a consonant, UNLESS the=
 nickname was a translation from another language.<br>

<br>
An even better example would be the use of actual descriptions as names in =
some languages (I am thinking of Amerind languages in particular, names lik=
e &quot;Sitting Bull&quot; or &quot;Running with the Deer&quot;). =C2=A0Con=
verting these to cmene forms might be possible, but might lose some meaning=
ful structure in doing so.<br>

<br>
Alas, people have chosen to be far more anarchic with regards to name selec=
tion than we intended. =C2=A0I&#39;m not sure that this is a good thing - t=
he morphological distinctiveness of cmene, fu&#39;ivla and other word categ=
ories aids in learning, and encourages people to think about morphology (wh=
ich is vital for other aspects of the language), which is not something Eng=
lish speakers tend to do very much.<div class=3D"im">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Is it simply because one if a cmene and the other is only a cmevla?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
One is a cmene, and the other is a brivla being used to call someone by des=
cription. =C2=A0&quot;cmevla&quot; means nothing to me as a concept.<div cl=
ass=3D"im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
What about the dog named Bear? Would calling him la cribe when speaking<br>
in Lojban not be calling him by name, but by nickname? We have to call<br>
him la.cribes. to call him by name?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
If you are translating the English word &quot;Bear&quot;, you might very we=
ll call him &quot;cribe&quot;, but categorically, doing so is translating t=
he English rather than giving him a Lojban name.</blockquote><div class=3D"=
im">
<br>I was thinking of the dog I&#39;ve read about in some Lojban texts who =
was called {la cribe} because his English name was &quot;Bear&quot;, and hi=
s English name was &quot;Bear&quot; due to his owner thinking he bore a str=
iking resemblance to one. I would assume had this jbopre been a native spea=
ker of Lojban, this resemblance would have caused the dog to be named {la c=
ribe} by his owner directly, and not merely as a translation of the English=
. <br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
It seems odd to me to allow the usage of such constructs as la tsani, la<br=
>
gleki, etc., but disallow naming ourselves or others with them, and I<br>
don&#39;t like it.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord=
er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
We allowed lots of things to accommodate possible natural language habits, =
in part because we wanted to allow non-English patterns a chance to enter t=
he language despite the very few non-English speakers in the beginning.<br>

<br>
I admire when someone creatively mimics a non-Lojban style using the full r=
esources of the language, but the non-standardness of such a style itself m=
arks it as being atypical Lojban.<br>
<br>
When I first ran into tsani&#39;s name, I presumed that it was a translatio=
n of his natlang name or nickname. =C2=A0I don&#39;t in fact know that this=
 is not the case.</blockquote><div class=3D"im">=C2=A0<br>Neither do I. I d=
o believe that la selpa&#39;i is a direct translation, however.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The whole reason many jbopre call themselves with cmevla<br>
is precisely because how outcast cmene are: must always be preceded<br>
/and/ followed by a glottal stop, must always end in a consonant, and<br>
may not have meaning- although they may be reflective of words that do.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord=
er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
And the Lojbanic philosophy was that this is the way that it should be. =C2=
=A0Names aren&#39;t brivla, and if a brivla is used as a name, it suggests =
involvement of all the places of that brivla. =C2=A0I have no idea what tsa=
ni considers to be the x1 and x2 of his brivla name, but those places are i=
nherent to the word choice.<br>

<br>
And the existence of predicate place structures for each and every brivla i=
s about as fundamental a principle for Lojban as there could be.<br>
<br>
A brivla description used as a name (marked with la or used vocatively with=
 doi) should have a full place structure.<br>
<br>
A cmene on the other hand, has no place structure. =C2=A0It is just a label=
.</blockquote><div class=3D"im">=C2=A0<br>Agreed. I don&#39;t think anyone =
is wants to remove the place structure from cmevla- &quot;brivla used as na=
mes&quot;. In fact, since the cmevla-&gt;brivla proposal would have the eff=
ect of making {&lt;name&gt;} =3D=3D {me la&lt;name&gt;}, I think the desire=
 is precisely the opposite. As far as my own opinion on the matter, I can s=
ee both benefits and disadvantages to it, so withholding judgement at this =
point.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
This whole cmevla-&gt;brivla push seems to me to be an effort to make cmene=
<br>
less outcast, more useful.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord=
er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
And as I see it, it is destroying the concept of Lojban as a logical-predic=
ate language. =C2=A0I don&#39;t see anything &quot;useful&quot; about treat=
ing a cmene as if it had a place structure, unless you are meaningfully goi=
ng to use that place structure.</blockquote>
<div class=3D"im">=C2=A0<br>With the default place structure, I don&#39;t s=
ee any real &quot;meaningful&quot; use, other than to remove to words {me l=
a} from bridi in which they are used. IIRC, however, the proposal allows fo=
r defining a unique place structure, in much the way lujvo and fu&#39;ivla =
are, and that obviously would make those cmene which are meaningful use- al=
though I do see it as a potential for lazy word-crafting, since why would a=
nyone define a lujvo/fu&#39;ivla for &quot;unicorn&quot; when they could ju=
st say {.unicorn.} and give /it/ the place structure of {pavyseljirna}?<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Personally, I think that cmene are better for foreign names, like<br>
la.par=C3=ADs., but I like the idea of natively naming our own stuff with<b=
r>
cmevla. When speaking in Lojban, I like {la jbogu&#39;e} better than<br>
{la.lojbanistan.},<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord=
er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
la lojbanistan has no places. =C2=A0It is a label for something, which we c=
an further identify with relative clauses if it is unclear. =C2=A0If we wan=
t to add the places of gugde, we can do so with la lojbanistan noi gugde ..=
.<br>

<br>
jbogu&#39;e is a brivla that implicitly invokes a people and a territory. I=
t is not a name. =C2=A0Using it as a name without bearing in mind that it h=
as a particular place structure is making the word meaningless (or more lik=
ely just invoking the keyword translation in a malrarna way).<br>

<br>
&quot;la jbogu&#39;e&quot; still has that place structure, as does la tsani=
 have its own. =C2=A0Lojban simply doesn&#39;t work without place structure=
s.<br></blockquote><div><br>Yes of course, and I don&#39;t use {la jbogu=
9;e} with the intent of removing those implicit places. The fact that when =
I say {la jbogu&#39;e} without them does not mean I am not aware that I imp=
licitly filling them with {zo&#39;e}.<br>
=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

If I saw people making use of place structures in their brivla names, I mig=
ht be more sympathetic. =C2=A0But they don&#39;t, and I suspect that absolu=
tely no one thinks about the x2 of tsani when they use that as his name.<di=
v class=3D"im">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I like {la jbobau} better than {la.lojban.}, and so<br>
on. It just feels more natural, which I know isn&#39;t much of an argument.=
<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
It&#39;s aesthetics, and as a natlang native speaker, your aesthetics are s=
uspect.<br></blockquote><div><br>Granted.<br>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex">


But until and unless you attach places to jbobau, and bear in mind that tho=
se places are present even when they are left unspecified, you aren&#39;t s=
peaking a predicate language.</blockquote><div class=3D"im">=C2=A0<br>I hon=
estly don&#39;t think that&#39;s a problem for any of us.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Also, all names were originally a description of the person in the<br>
language of that people. All of them. Some still are, like in Japanese<br>
names and other Asian tongues. Using cmene means divorcing names even<br>
further from their meaning, and I don&#39;t like that idea at all.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord=
er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
In Lojban, unlike natlangs, &quot;meaning&quot; requires predication.</bloc=
kquote><div class=3D"im">=C2=A0<br>Well, yes, but it doesn&#39;t require pr=
edicates to be explicitly filled.<br><br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Very few people today- that aren&#39;t Jewish- know that &quot;Jonathan&quo=
t; is<br>
Jewish for {lo se dunda be lo cevni}<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord=
er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I notice that you used &quot;lo&quot; and not &quot;la cevni&quot;, which w=
ould be more correct.</blockquote><div><br>I used lo because I was translat=
ing the meaning- as a word, not as a name=E3=80=81but I don&#39;t think tha=
t really matters wrt this discussion.<br>
=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Lojbanically it would have to b=
e &quot;la se dunda (be fi zo&#39;e) be la cevni be la xebro bei roda&quot;=
 and using those words one would implicitly understand it as a gift to some=
 particular recipients, and one would not understand it as a transaction re=
quiring payment. =C2=A0The natural language origins of this etymology start=
 breaking down when one thinks about who the gift is for, and that God inte=
nded the &quot;gift&quot; to be transactional (canja) for some form of wors=
hip.<br>

<br>
More important, a lot of people, especially those who aren&#39;t Jewish, no=
wadays are named &quot;Jonathan&quot; with no implication of any gift from =
any particular God. =C2=A0The etymology may be interesting, but it is meani=
ngless to how the name is actually used.<br>

<br>
In lojban, someone called la seldunda be la cevni has all that meaning, and=
 thus most people named Jonathan should probably not want their name transl=
ated that way.</blockquote><div class=3D"im"><br>I wouldn&#39;t mind, mysel=
f. I don&#39;t use the transliteration or translation of my given name pure=
ly because I don&#39;t much care for it, which is why I went with .aionys. =
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
and it&#39;s Lojbanization of<br>
{la.djanatyn.} would be even worse off, because the meaning would be<br>
stripped.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord=
er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
What&#39;s wrong with that, since the meaning is not used linguistically? I=
t&#39;s a fossil or a time when perhaps names had more descriptive nature, =
and/or it is a preserved habit of people who don&#39;t think in predicates.=
</blockquote>
<div class=3D"im">=C2=A0<br>Again, aesthetic opinion: what&#39;s wrong with=
 it is /that/ the meaning is not used linguistically. I like the idea of na=
mes having meaning, like they do in Asian and aboriginal languages (and pro=
bably others). (I should note that by aboriginal I mean all the &quot;primi=
tive&quot; peoples, who I believe all use descriptive names, and in many ca=
ses require some kind of naming ritual to attain adulthood.)<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I&#39;ll grant I don&#39;t know any people that would name their<br>
children {la cevyseldu&#39;a}, but then again, I only know one jbopre with<=
br>
kids, and they&#39;re both girls.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord=
er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
And why couldn&#39;t a girl be called &quot;la cevyseldu&#39;a&quot;. =C2=
=A0Doesn&#39;t God give girls as a gift? =C2=A0On the other hand, there is =
nothing wrong with claiming that la.djanatyn. is typically a boy&#39;s name=
.</blockquote>
<div class=3D"im">=C2=A0<br>I was trying to make a joke there, actually. We=
 haven&#39;t really made any kind of decisions on which cmene are girl&#39;=
s name and which are boy&#39;s, and I don&#39;t want to be the one that sta=
rts that discussion.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
My point is, I think that the meaning is important- and I realize that<br>
calling myself .aionys. doesn&#39;t live up to that, being as it&#39;s a<br=
>
meaningless Lojbanization of my online nickname. Honestly, my only<br>
reason for keeping .aionys. is that I&#39;ve had it for so long everyone<br=
>
knows me by it, and I honestly have no idea what descriptive name I&#39;d<b=
r>
give myself anyway, being the uncreative person I am, in contrast to la<br>
stela selckiku, la selpa&#39;i, la tsani, etc.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord=
er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Personally, I wished that they used Lojbanizations of their real names. =C2=
=A0I think I personally started losing track of the community when I could =
no longer connect the Lojbanic handles to real people with real names. =C2=
=A0If you post as .aionys., I simply will not connect you to the one who po=
sts as &quot;Jonathan Jones&quot;, and I have absolutely no idea who stela =
selckiku, selpa&#39;i, and tsani are in real life (even if I may have met t=
hem at a Logfest, I wouldn&#39;t remember).<br>
</blockquote><div><br>That&#39;s fine. I&#39;m absolutely horrible with nam=
es as well, but at least in the context of these groups, I go by what peopl=
e sign their messages with, not by the tag their email provider gives me.<b=
r>
=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

I&#39;ve thought of the Lojbanic &quot;cmevla&quot; as you call them as bei=
ng somewhat akin to Internet handles, which are sometimes identifying, but =
as often as not are obscuring of the real identity. =C2=A0I didn&#39;t choo=
se to call myself &quot;lojbab&quot;. =C2=A0People started calling me that,=
 and they weren&#39;t Lojbanists, and it became how I was most commonly kno=
wn. =C2=A0It was also useful because at the time there were more than one &=
quot;Bob&quot; active in the community. But there is no real meaning, and h=
ence no predication, and thus I can have all kinds of fun with the fact tha=
t I have nothing to do with logical-soap, whatever that would be.<div class=
=3D"im">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I mean, what would be the cmene for {la dansu kansa be lo labno}?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
That would in fact be an example of a description being used legitimately a=
s a name (not having seen the movie, so I don&#39;t know how well it applie=
s), since it invokes a predication, which can be manipulated linguistically=
 using the tools of Lojban as can any predication.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Let me make sure I&#39;m understanding this correctly=
. What you&#39;re saying is, if a person was named something like the above=
, you would consider it a name, even though it is not a cmene?<br>=C2=A0</d=
iv>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

I believe that some languages that use descriptions as names do indeed mani=
pulate them linguistically. =C2=A0But I&#39;m hard pressed to think of an e=
xample at the moment. In standard English, on the other hand, names are jus=
t labels; any meaning is incidental, and a name like &quot;Dances with Wolv=
es&quot; or even &quot;Bear&quot; Bryant stands out as being non-standard.=
=C2=A0</blockquote>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<br>
lojbab<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>Right. My desire is that we do not do wh=
at English does. My preference is that we do not treat Lojbanic names as &q=
uot;just labels&quot;, that we should name our places, things, people, etc.=
, with names that /do/ have meaning, like &quot;Sitting Bear&quot; and so o=
n.<br clear=3D"all">
<br>-- <br>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e .aionys.<br><br>.i.e&#39;ucai ko cmima lo piln=
o be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo&#39;o<br>(Come to the Dot Side! Lu=
ke, I am your father. :D )<br>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3De=
n">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />

--089e0160a6f4fe3f7e04de028e40--