Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 2001:470:8:42:2c0:f0ff:fe3b:b5b5 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of phma@bezitopo.org) client-ip=2001:470:8:42:2c0:f0ff:fe3b:b5b5;
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@bezitopo.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 09:12:59 -0400
Message-ID: <41521430.TEBeKLhUlL@caracal>
User-Agent: KMail/4.8.5 (Linux/3.2.0-44-generic; KDE/4.8.5; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <51A8680E.7040103@lojban.org>
References: <CAHxnAmJvBZ1_4S1OF45n3dd5g2iQmFEGiQbsyBTN6PwybsNkrA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMKwHj3gpou-t-6wPOLP7TCXdGhVGU2z+H-z4g=yGJK8Yg2gEg@mail.gmail.com> <51A8680E.7040103@lojban.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

On Friday, May 31, 2013 05:06:22 Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> Jonathan Jones wrote:
> > 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.  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 form 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.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> >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.

"Jonathan" is derived from God's name, not the word for God. The name derived 
from the word for God is "Nathaniel". Other names with that meaning are 
"Theodore", "Dorothy", "Bogdan", and "Godgyfu" (modern English "Godiva"). In 
Lojban, one could make a name "cevdud".

Pierre
-- 
gau do li'i co'e kei do

-- 
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.