Return-Path: Return-Path: Message-Id: From: eric (Eric S. Raymond) Subject: Re: xebro To: cowan Date: Fri, 7 Jun 91 12:01:30 EDT Cc: In-Reply-To: ; from "snark!cowan" at Jun 7, 91 11:06 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL13] Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Fri Jun 7 16:10:01 1991 X-From-Space-Address: snark!eric > > Oh, and BTW, is Allah to be considered > > synonymous with jegvo? That would likely get on the nerves of a lot of > > Muslims. Maybe Allah rates a gismu, or maybe neither does. cevni may have > > to cover it. > > That question is deliberately left open. Our understanding was that the > necessary garbling to make "Allah" into a gismu would be culturally > unacceptable. It is also an open question whether "jegvo" means "God", > or whether it is the cultural adjective "Judeo-Christian". "cevni" of course > is any sort of god, capitalized or not. It is, in fact, correct Islamic theology to regard `Allah' and `Jehovah' as the same god (and, in fact, pious Moslems revere Jesus as one of the seven great prophets leading up to `the Seal of the Prophets', Mohammed). Islam's position is formally that it represents the purified form of the worship of the God of the Moslems, Christians, and Jews --- the `People of the Book' (that is, the Bible). Islamic law and tradition makes sharp distinctions between the `People of the Book' and `idolaters'. So much for history. Now for linguistic deconstruction... > My personal view is that "jegvo" means "God" and that Allah cu jegvo. While this is correct Islamic theology, I must differ with the implied assumption. It is ethnocentric, and far too partial to the Judeo-Christian- Islamic traditions, to identify `jegvo' with `God'. Other traditions have omnipotent creator-gods too; consider the `Atman' of Hinduism as a fine example of one that won't fit into a linguistic box cognate to JHVH. Indeed Mr. Cowan's view strays perilously close to giving lojban an established religion.... !!! :-) Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the deities of all the `ethical monotheisms' had sufficient in common to be described by the same gismu, *and* that their worshipers were willing to swallow a gismu so patently derived from JHVH...this arrangement would *still* do semantic violence to persons who, like myself, adhere to notions of `godhood' more complex and subtle than the one implied by `jegvo'. Even if you don't find my out-and-out polytheism respectable, you might at least consider the feelings of the world's Buddhists! Cultural neutrality demands that we not read our culture's prejudices into such an important gismu. `Jegvo' must be read `the Judeo/Christian/Islamic /Zoroastrian creator-God' (oh, you want to know about the Zoroastrians? ask me by private email sometime...). Personally, I'd rather the evil old bastard didn't get a gismu at all, but, hey, that's just *my* prejudices showing... -- >>eric>>