From gregory.dyke@epfl.ch Tue May 27 01:58:17 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 27 May 2003 01:58:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail0.epfl.ch ([128.178.50.57]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 19KaHa-0003FI-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 27 May 2003 01:58:10 -0700 Received: (qmail 30566 invoked from network); 27 May 2003 08:58:09 -0000 Received: from icin2pc41.epfl.ch (HELO ICIN2PC41W) (128.178.158.141) by mail0.epfl.ch with SMTP; 27 May 2003 08:58:09 -0000 Message-ID: <009e01c3242e$1857f920$8d9eb280@ic.intranet.epfl.ch> From: "Gregory Dyke" To: References: Subject: [lojban] Re: Parasite Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 10:58:09 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-archive-position: 5437 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: gregory.dyke@epfl.ch Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list cu'u la sanxiyn > G. Dyke wrote: > > > I don't so much object to ji'etcu being definded as "parasite" -- > > although I can[sic] think of better alternatives - as to Bob's > -- Isn't it "can't"? If not, suggest one! pavyfartcu nalcajytcu > > unwarranted enthusiasm faced with a Korean calque as opposed to the > > English calques we see so often. > > I agree that {jmive} is not "saeng" as in "gisaeng", and use of the > same word for both concept of "alive" and "organic" is culture-centric, > metaphorical, therefore maybe non-lojbanic. No, I don't think it's culture-centric. It's just that something can still be organic after death. Which is jmive to be? alive or organic. I vote organic, since we already have tolmorsi for alive. > But don't call it "Korean calque"! It's rather "CJK calque", since > anyone from Chinese, Japanese, Korean, i.e. Han-Ideographic culture > will recognize it. my bad, and I suppose my tone appeared rather negative. You are right in that if "English calque" is bad, > "CJK calque" is equally bad, but I should point out that it is not > worse, since CJK population is not smaller than English population. I'd never suggested any idea of worse or better. But the quality of an idea is not reflected by the number of people who accept it... mu'o mi'e greg