From xod@thestonecutters.net Mon May 26 10:03:01 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 26 May 2003 10:03:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19KLN7-0007R9-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 26 May 2003 10:02:54 -0700 Received: from granite.thestonecutters.net (localhost.thestonecutters.net [127.0.0.1]) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.12.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4QGx53F007589 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 12:59:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) with ESMTP id h4QGx5oo007586 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 12:59:05 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) X-Authentication-Warning: granite.thestonecutters.net: xod owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 12:59:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Invent Yourself To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Parasite In-Reply-To: <001e01c32398$6d5983d0$9b9eb280@ic.intranet.epfl.ch> Message-ID: <20030526125302.Y7019-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 5416 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Mon, 26 May 2003, Gregory Dyke wrote: > cu'u la bab > > > >"parasite" is _gisaengcung_, "dependent-organic-worm". ({c} is > > >pronounced /ch/ as in church) Indispensable Unicode: > > >U+5BC4 U+751F U+87F2. > > > > > > >So, {tcuji'e} means "x1 is parasitic". For "parasitic worm", > > >use {tcuji'e curnu}. > > > > I love it! Someone add it to jbovlaste, please!! (And if there is a way > > to note the Korean connection in jbovlaste, it seems worth doing so). > > I find your enthusiasm terrifying. Without any disrespect intended to > sanxiyn or to the korean who coined _gisaengcung_, this is a poor > representation of my idea of a parasite. Why limit this this to the organic > (let alone the living, as the lojban does)?. Also, based upon the underlying > tanru, I am a parasite, because {mi nitcu lemi rirni} What do you mean, "underlying tanru"? A lujvo picks only one of the tanru meanings. Some other tanru meaning, under which you fear you fall, has no bearing on a lujvo. > If you argue that the negative connotation (which is what I don't enjoy > about being called a parasite) shouldn't transfer over to Lojban, then we > are left with the fact that parasite = nitcu. And I'll not have malnitcu > defined as parasite + negative connotation, as it already means (to my mind) > "addicted" I don't see it in Nora's lujvo list. > I'd define parasitic as "uni-lateral dependancy", (by which I mean that the > parasitic organism doesn't give anything back to the host). Someone with > more motivation than me can work out the lujvo for that... (you can then > also add a zdani to that if you want symbiotic parasites) > > I think the whole idea of finding out how other languages does stuff is > absolute bullshit. Experienced lojbanists know more about combining their > own concepts to say what they mean than any other language does about > combining their own words to creat new ones. Just imagine if we started > using some of the ridiculous computer terms that some natlangs have come up > with: "Browser", "butineur" for instance... I don't know what a "butineur" is, but you're probably referring to metaphors, which naturally, as a fine upstanding Lojbanist, you regard as Satanic. Regardless, tcuji'e hardly falls into that picturesque category; it is about as straightforward a rendering as can be imagined. -- Neoconservatism in the realm of foreign policy is merely Trotskyism-turned-inside-out: a militant internationalism fueled by U.S. taxpayer dollars and backed up by the mightiest military the world has ever seen.