Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 26374 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2000 09:57:47 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 22 Mar 2000 09:57:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 283 invoked by uid 40001); 22 Mar 2000 09:59:09 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 280 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2000 09:59:08 -0000 Received: from c3.egroups.com (208.48.218.20) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 22 Mar 2000 09:59:08 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2299-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.37] by c3.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Mar 2000 09:59:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 9037 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2000 09:59:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Mar 2000 09:59:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d06.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.38) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 22 Mar 2000 09:59:06 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id h.7c.324a07b (4355) for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 04:59:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <7c.324a07b.2609f363@aol.com> To: lojban@onelist.com X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 33 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@onelist.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 04:58:59 EST X-eGroups-From: Pycyn@aol.com From: pycyn@aol.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Translating names Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 4444 Lines: 66 "There are nine and ninety ways of writing tribal lays, and every single one of them is right" and the same applies, pretty much, to Lojban names, as Cowan points out. Except for the phonological exclusions (which wreak havoc with Sherlock Holmes fans and many French descendants), just about anything between {la}/{doi} and a pause will work. If a mass of verbiage is used to refer to or summon someone/thing, then slapping it into that frame makes it a legitmate name -- with the grammatical proviso that, if it is not interpretable as Lojban, it ends in a consonant. So, {la} really does mean something close to {la'e lu...li'u} with some language specfic constraints. The final consonant and the pause are needed for segmentation purposes but are not otherwise significant. Nor, in Lojban, is the choice of final consonant; in Loglan, -s is required in borrowed or constructed names that would end in a vowel. I suspect that JCB used -s because, as suggested, it was familiar, but also because he took it to be a minimal addition (talking about {romas} for Rome, he notes how little the mere -s would bother a Roman, though he is contrasting it with the effect of dropping the last syllable. He makes a similar comment about {paRIS} for French). Lojban's preference for s probably is inherited. The preference for n probably is, too; it appeared in constructed names first where it was vaguely justified ({loglentan, the last element from {takna}) then where it was not. It was also used to make names out of cmavo ({nen}, One). Again this is familiar and minimal (in some sense) and, I suspect, the symmetry of {nen}, the most common case, was appealing to JCB. Both of these rules or patterns might have been generalized in Lojban's more relaxed atmosphere. But what to do in a particular case? Names -- in English, say -- fall into two classes: transparent and opaque (dare I use that word in a new context?) and transparent into two subgroups, applicable and not. Transparent names are names that have a meaning in the language, like "Smith" or "Brown" or "Johnson." Applicable names are ones where that meaning actually applies to the referent and is used for that referent because it applies (I won't insist on this second clause). In English, last names are often transparent, though not often applicable any more; first names are usually opaque -- in English, however transparent they may be in, say, Hebrew. This seems to be pretty generally the case in European languages; most other places I know about seem to have meaningful names throughout and even some drive toward applicablity (at least as a wish) for the part that is conventional (the individual name, as opposed to the inherited one). Nick names tend to be transparent and applicable (in a projected sense at least, maybe involving a wish or a long story: a baseball player was called "Alby" because albumin was found in his urine in a physical exam -- and this led to speculation about what he had been up to recently). All of this is leading up to a suggestion about what name to use for a person when moving into Lojban from the home language. In general, I think, opaque names come over simply in transliteration: my "John" is {djan}, not some translation of whatever "Jokhanon" means in Hebrew (though what to do in the case of John son of Zebedee, for whom all us Johns are ultimately named?). But applicable transparent names, particularly when they are going to actually be applied, should be translated. Thus, the family name Bear would be just {ber} in most cases, but the nickname Bear for a person whose stocky build, hirsuteness and what not was to the fore, would be {cribe}. And if the applicability was not to the fore, then {cribeC} or even {crib} Remember God introduces himself as la nu mi zaste when it comes time to make the point. None of this is even chalked on stone, but it seems a reasonable approach to deal with the various that names play. pc ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MAXIMIZE YOUR CARD, MINIMIZE YOUR RATE! Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! http://click.egroups.com/1/2122/2/_/17627/_/953719147/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com