From lojbab@lojban.org Sun Sep 16 22:56:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 17 Sep 2001 05:56:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 88941 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2001 22:46:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Sep 2001 22:46:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-4.cais.net) (205.252.14.74) by mta3 with SMTP; 16 Sep 2001 22:46:09 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (dynamic194.cl8.cais.net [205.177.20.194]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f8GMk1t87801 for ; Sun, 16 Sep 2001 18:46:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010916183636.00db2550@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 18:43:23 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] (from lojban-beginners) pi'e In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10777 At 05:55 PM 9/15/01 -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 9/15/2001 4:04:17 PM Central Daylight Time, >rob@twcny.rr.com writes: >>Don't be foolish. I was un-Lojbanizing the name, suggesting that there just >>might be someone whose name is similar to the name of a year. The full cmene >>was {pavosorenanc}, which I split up into two words (much like I called >>myself >>{la rabspir.} before I knew that {bs} wasn't allowed). > >I wish you'd mentioned that you were unlojbanizing, since the rest was >lojbanized, I asssume dthat this was meant to be too. Someone with a name >like that would, of course, in Lojban, have a quite distinctive name, >which was my point -- also rather obliquely. That is, {paVOson REnanc} is >not likely to be confused with {pavosoREnanc} -- or it should not be. The >use with {ca} or {ca'o} or whatever time operator you use would also count >against this (though it could mean "during the lifetime of" >apparently). I still don't see the point, unless it is just that using >year names is yucky, which I agree with (for all they are convenient). I think more importantly, that the concern over confusing the possible referent of a name is no more likely than confusing the possible referent of a year number, given the large number of calendars in existence, with different year numberings. The other issue is whether people want to have the option of using decomposable names. They aren't required, but the name of the language shows that they are in theory permitted for those that choose. Yes there is the possibility of overlapping with a non-decomposable name. My daughter's middle name was intentionally so chosen: "la ka trina" = "Katrina". Which also points out the names that aren't cmevla, allowing years to be expressed by "la pavosoremoi nancu" lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org