From 35Py3SwwJBuQGJGSMGXXOMaYMSGOR.IUSRUPHGTMUUMRKMXUaVY.IUS@groups.bounces.google.com Sat Apr 03 19:44:13 2010 Received: from mail-qy0-f139.google.com ([209.85.221.139]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <35Py3SwwJBuQGJGSMGXXOMaYMSGOR.IUSRUPHGTMUUMRKMXUaVY.IUS@groups.bounces.google.com>) id 1NyFom-00062g-Om for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sat, 03 Apr 2010 19:44:13 -0700 Received: by qyk4 with SMTP id 4sf7177002qyk.27 for ; Sat, 03 Apr 2010 19:44:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:received:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :x-thread-url:x-message-url:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=XkDm3/IOocaFQ5H/X5QyUoJVaw6dzRzoPcbNOBzHtq8=; b=d0kAL0wCHLCV08xuy3/V1owT/VkQiGO7IQV8XxHU981ih/CIZzTpaAQmHApYCywQ9A tLJJvcURCegJ98ZRxgsUCl8ILrbGEJk/YgbnTq3v+61k69Tt6R5tOGy7Zx8W1SHR+thD vdgSKiYhBBU4YSW4YQZMcXnq5BbF3SWlMpDgw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:x-thread-url:x-message-url :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=zcTQ/v+mMLvNT8sQypo4QG0nqrUcqJuhGRXBF5lNnbnW4xI5GZIFfYMdxxBS1AtyVO F1PlVuxuSXwtD0UenHXYHwvLLSg7HuusQwwF3WexbVAESN+UgszOHFoZMF9/poh+qDnj OSym+BdZ+hxcaRtKZpiOgJlgEsU+nPB2iE0u8= Received: by 10.224.26.142 with SMTP id e14mr147699qac.34.1270349028067; Sat, 03 Apr 2010 19:43:48 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.41.66 with SMTP id n2ls925446qae.3.p; Sat, 03 Apr 2010 19:43:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.69.220 with SMTP id a28mr104011qaj.8.1270349025987; Sat, 03 Apr 2010 19:43:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.69.220 with SMTP id a28mr104010qaj.8.1270349025917; Sat, 03 Apr 2010 19:43:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com (mail-vw0-f46.google.com [209.85.212.46]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 18si1233698qyk.4.2010.04.03.19.43.44; Sat, 03 Apr 2010 19:43:44 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of adamgarrigus@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.46; Received: by vws13 with SMTP id 13so976786vws.19 for ; Sat, 03 Apr 2010 19:43:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.74.136 with HTTP; Sat, 3 Apr 2010 19:43:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4BB7D709.1050007@gmail.com> References: <4BB7D709.1050007@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 22:43:44 -0400 Received: by 10.220.108.20 with SMTP id d20mr1817490vcp.205.1270349024698; Sat, 03 Apr 2010 19:43:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Currency units From: "komfo,amonan" To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of adamgarrigus@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.46 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=adamgarrigus@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: adamgarrigus@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: X-Thread-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/t/39f98ae3f0b3d959 X-Message-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/5e6ba684937e6d73 List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00c09f8fe5d95ba10d0483602e6f --00c09f8fe5d95ba10d0483602e6f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Leo Molas wrote: > I think there will be people that won't use this fu'ivla, people that like > this, and people who are against this method. I would like to know the > opinions of the last two groups (since the first one won't be affected > if we upload this to jbovlaste, for example). > I find myself vehemently opposed to these proposals. Some of the reasons I've stated earlier in this or another related thread, but to summarize. 1) There is cultural bias all over the language. Whatever bias is perceived as a result of autonymous vocabulary creation isn't IMHO much of a big deal in comparison. 2) The ISO approach yields hundreds of words which are to me frustratingly similar. 3) The ISO approach can't help you with defunct countries, so the Inca Empire will presumably remain {la tauantinsuius}. 4) The ISO approach can't help you with ethnicities, so a Buryat will presumably be {*prenrburiada} or {*se natmrburiada} or {*burdiada}, while the Buryat language will carry an ISO code. 5) The ISO presumably had different goals in developing the codes than Lojbanistan does in developing vocabulary. I laud all the work y'all have put into generating this vocabulary. Leo just asked for opinions, so I gave one. I don't have enough time to devote to Lojban these days to generate 250 autonymous words for languages & put them into jbovlaste, or even to decide why they should be brivla rather than cmevla. Shrug. But it's a fascinating discussion. mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --00c09f8fe5d95ba10d0483602e6f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Leo Molas <leos.molas@gmail.com> wrote:
=
I think there will be people that won't use this fu'ivla, people th= at like
this, and people who are against this method. I would like to know the
opinions of the last two groups (since the first one won't be affected<= br> if we upload this to jbovlaste, for example).

I fi= nd myself vehemently opposed to these proposals. Some of the reasons I'= ve stated earlier in this or another related thread, but to summarize.
1) There is cultural bias all over the language. Whatever bias is perceived= as a result of autonymous vocabulary creation isn't IMHO much of a big= deal in comparison.
2) The ISO approach yields hundreds of words which = are to me frustratingly similar.
3) The ISO approach can't help you with defunct countries, so the Inca = Empire will presumably remain {la tauantinsuius}.
4) The ISO approach ca= n't help you with ethnicities, so a Buryat will presumably be {*prenrbu= riada} or {*se natmrburiada} or {*burdiada}, while the Buryat language will= carry an ISO code.
5) The ISO presumably had different goals in developing the codes than Lojb= anistan does in developing vocabulary.

I laud all the work y'all= have put into generating this vocabulary. Leo just asked for opinions, so = I gave one.

I don't have enough time to devote to Lojban these days to generate= 250 autonymous words for languages & put them into jbovlaste, or even = to decide why they should be brivla rather than cmevla. Shrug. But it's= a fascinating discussion.

mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--00c09f8fe5d95ba10d0483602e6f--