From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Thu Jun 15 03:07:49 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7828 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2000 10:07:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 15 Jun 2000 10:07:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ej.egroups.com) (10.1.10.49) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Jun 2000 10:07:47 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.10.34] by ej.egroups.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2000 10:07:47 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:07:44 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: lujvo Message-ID: <8ia9th+gngh@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <394790FE.EFDECE57@math.bas.bg> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2596 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 3079 --- In lojban@egroups.com, Ivan A Derzhanski wrote: > Jorge Llambias wrote: > > > > >But why use a lujvo/tanru anyway? Why not a cmene? It is the name > > >of one particular character, isn't it? > > > > I don't see a problem with either. We use lots of different > > names and descriptions in other languages, Mary, Holy Mary, > > Virgin Mary, Holy Mother of God, Our Lady of Mercy, Mystic Rose, > > and so many others, > > But all of those are proper names -- they are terms rather than > predicates, whether their meaning is transparent or not. A tanru > such as {cevni mamta}, or a lujvo derived from it, is a predicate, > and probably the main thing about predicates is that they can be > predicated of different things or tuples of things, as long as > they fit the definition, which in this case would be something > like `#1 is mother of god #2, of religion #3, by father #4', or > whatever. You see why this makes me think of one of the many > mothers of members of polytheistic pantheons, and why I'd expect > Christians to prefer a cmene. > > > there's no reason to restrain ourselves in Lojban. > > English, Spanish and Russian have developed into their present forms > whilst being spoken by predominantly Christian societies, and as a > result they have a slant towards Christianity. So `Mother of God' > in English, or _Bogomater'_ in Russian, means the mother of the > Christian deity without any further specification, and the use > of such an expression does not require that the speaker believe > in the existence of the said deity or its mother. But if the > language is not a Christian one (loose turn of phrase here, but > you know what I mean), a literal translation of `Mother of God' > might not be appropriate. The Sanskrit means `mother > of [Hindu] gods'. And Lojban has no particular connexion to any > religion. So I don't expect `Our Lady of Mercy' to make sense > if translated. Translating _Madonna_ is even more absurd, since > that doesn't have a literal meaning in any current language -- > it's a fossilised expression. "Pater peccavi!" - I think I must totally agree with Ivan: *Not* using a cmene, the selbri is limited to one and only scope - just like saying: "A red-eyed-blue-horned-pink-rhinoceros is a red-e yed-blue-horned-pink-rhinoceros of type red-eyed-blue-horned-pink- rhinoceros" etc. 'Madonna' (linguistically!) indeed is a fossilized expression as one would have to say la mia donna/mia donna/donna mia... So let it be: la madOnas. - But in no case la mydanys.!!! :-) co'o mi'e .aulun.