From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Sep 28 12:50:20 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1EKhwP-0005VT-Si for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:50:09 -0700 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.202]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1EKhwH-0005T0-Mu for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:50:09 -0700 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 71so10585wri for ; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:50:00 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=T4Zi9Nj24Som2gSy0FmPbhGF7j0iGVPF80V8sgN0/iCXg5Xy/bgqzWCUsMi59iM9G3E9cvshCSN0wrGkQt3O7VxqKnuZgXzDN01ynQ2mixjLjEOe2FMnz3TZaZJOosDc6LhVxFt6Iy7rapIpWbr+2q6/e7HkB9IJFl9b2444WIU= Received: by 10.54.15.31 with SMTP id 31mr44914wro; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:50:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.142.3 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:50:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:50:00 -0400 From: Matt Arnold To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] adverbs to indicate whose standard is used MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_12138_19891824.1127937000637" X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-archive-position: 10665 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: matt.mattarn@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list ------=_Part_12138_19891824.1127937000637 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline A friend of mine blogged the following: "We need a couple of new adverbs (or maybe I just need to find existing ones) that indicate whose definition of a word we are using: our's, our subculture's, or society-at-large's. They need to be simple enough to inser= t comfortably into casual conversation; single syllable, and preferably not syllables that could be mistaken for other adverbs. Why? 1. I'd like to be able to say 'I like foo-bad girls' without stopping to explain that by foo-bad, I mean girls that society-at-large labels as bad. In this case, because they are sexually agressive, but that was imp= lied in the conversation. 2. There are lots of people out there with no idea that there's a difference. Fundamentalism is built (in part) on this misunderstanding. = If the truth of it gets pushed into language itself, they'll have to fight = a lot harder to hide it. Unfortunately, the 'foo' in reason 1 won't work; it's a metasyntactic variable, already in heavy circulation among geeks. And I can't think of an= y good ideas off the top of my head. Any ideas?" The reason I'm sending this to the Lojban list is to ask, does Lojban contain this feature or anything remotely similar? What is the best way in Lojban, if any, to say what he is trying to say? If we provide a Lojban wor= d or term for this that can be dropped into conversation, it might spread virally (who knows?) and anyone wondering about its etymology would probabl= y find out about the existence of Lojban. -epkat ------=_Part_12138_19891824.1127937000637 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline A friend of mine blogged the following:

"We need a couple of new adverbs (or maybe I just need to find existin= g ones) that indicate whose definition of a word we are using: our's, our subculture's, or society-at-large's. They need to be simple enough to insert comfortably into casual conversation; single syllable, and preferably not syllables that could be mistaken for other adverbs.

Why?
  1. I'd like to be able to say 'I like foo-bad girls' without stopping to explain that by foo-bad, I mean girls that society-at-large labels as bad. In this case, because they are sexually agressive, but that was implied in the conversation.

  2. There are lots of people out there with no idea that there's a difference. Fundamentalism is built (in part) on this misunderstanding. If the truth of it gets pushed into language itself, they'll have to fight a lot harder to hide it.
Unfortunately, the 'foo' in reason 1 won't work; it's a metasyntactic variable, already in heavy circulation among geeks. And I can't think of any good ideas off the top of my head. Any ideas?"

The reason I'm sending this to the Lojban list is to ask, does Lojban contain this feature or anything remotely similar? What is the best way in Lojban, if any, to say what he is trying to say? If we provide a Lojban word or term for this that can be dropped into conversation, it might spread virally (who knows?) and anyone wondering about its etymology would probably find out about the existence of Lojban.
-epkat
------=_Part_12138_19891824.1127937000637-- To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.