From mathmaniac@hanmail.net Tue May 27 01:16:33 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: mathmaniac@hanmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 89396 invoked from network); 27 May 2003 08:16:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 May 2003 08:16:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n6.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.90) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 May 2003 08:16:32 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.153] by n6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 May 2003 08:16:32 -0000 Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 08:16:29 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Parasite Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <007501c32422$6c8b6ab0$8d9eb280@ic.intranet.epfl.ch> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 850 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "sshiskom" X-Originating-IP: 143.248.205.98 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122399845 X-Yahoo-Profile: sshiskom X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 19914 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! > 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. 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. 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. mi'e sanxiyn.