From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Nov 12 12:24:45 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Received: (qmail 18039 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2007 20:24:43 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (66.218.67.94) by m47.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Nov 2007 20:24:43 -0000 X-Received: from unknown (HELO mail6.sea5.speakeasy.net) (69.17.117.8) by mta15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Nov 2007 20:24:43 -0000 X-Received: (qmail 5407 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2007 20:24:42 -0000 X-Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) (envelope-sender ) by mail6.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 12 Nov 2007 20:24:42 -0000 X-Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Irfpn-0004U1-Kr for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:24:40 -0800 X-Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Irfov-0004Hq-4L; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:23:53 -0800 X-Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:19:42 -0800 (PST) X-Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Irfkz-0004Hf-CL for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:19:41 -0800 X-Received: from eastrmmtao105.cox.net ([68.230.240.47]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Irfkr-0004Gz-UT for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:19:38 -0800 X-Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by eastrmmtao105.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20071112201926.LABQ15781.eastrmmtao105.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:19:26 -0500 X-Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([72.192.234.183]) by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id BwK81Y00B3y5FKc0000000; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:19:09 -0500 Message-ID: <4738B51F.7090503@lojban.org> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:18:39 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <26730.155.208.254.98.1194877458.squirrel@polimnia.eridia.it> <47387DF2.4060803@lojban.org> <20071112091018.xbs9yb51cwgk0w8g@webmail.ixkey.info> In-Reply-To: <20071112091018.xbs9yb51cwgk0w8g@webmail.ixkey.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 13925 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 69.17.117.8 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: Bob LeChevalier From: Bob LeChevalier Reply-To: lojbab@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: OT: all cultures equal? X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=lRYVkY_yuZPLMa-JwaKyrqG6sqNryOC2J17L5h_a82Tg6DIWgg X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 28402 mungojelly@ixkey.info wrote: > Quoting Bob LeChevalier : >> Perhaps the error is in the word "equal" as well. To say that all >> cultures deserve respect does not necessarily require that all cultures >> get equal respect. Rather, it means that the range of respect that is >> granted should always be above some minimal value, arising from the sum >> of the minimum value of the respect due each individual person in that >> culture merely for being a human being. > > coi lojbab .io > > .i doi rodo > > We need not do all cultures the respect of uncritically accepting their > ideas (not hardly!) but here the respect we are discussing is the basic > respect of being honorably named, and I will proudly stand again behind > saying that we as a community should offer that without hesitation to > all peoples on this Earth. What constitutes being "honorably named"? Or dishonorably named? Is the discussion is about names? Or is it about brivla, or even more specifically gismu? Those were chosen NOT for "honor" but merely for pragmatic usefulness. If anyone thinks "softo" was in the least bit an attempt to honor or even "respect" the Soviet Union, they are simply wrong. It was to provide a word for a concept that a lot of people, including the 250 million people then in the Soviet Union, used, based on Helen Eaton's research that said that one of the most frequent concepts in language was [name of speaker's culture/language]. Pragmatics, not respect. If the argument is what I think it is (and I haven't looked upthread), my response is not based on "respect" but pragmatics as well. We cannot give every culture a name in gismu space - there aren't enough possible words, and there are multiple cultures that would share the same Lojbanization. Realizing that there were people who wanted more cultures covered than would fit, we came up with the experimental form of 6-letter fu'ivla that can be used in lujvo, but so far as I know, no one has even tried to make use of that reserved space for its intended purpose. If that is not enough, or if people of a culture would feel disrespected by the mangling of their chosen name into Lojbanic form, we have type III fu'ivla (I remain opposed to the use of type IV fu'ivla at this stage of the language's usage). The decision as to which cultures get words in lujvo-fu'ivla space should be based on pragmatics - what words do Lojbanists use and need, and not based on any concept of "respect" or "disrespect" lojbab To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.