From 3K6K4SwoJBtE6688x9y5xF39x58.zB98B6yxA3BB3813EBHCF.zB9@groups.bounces.google.com Sun Apr 04 07:29:26 2010 Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <3K6K4SwoJBtE6688x9y5xF39x58.zB98B6yxA3BB3813EBHCF.zB9@groups.bounces.google.com>) id 1NyQpE-0005EK-PH for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 04 Apr 2010 07:29:25 -0700 Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5sf4871867vws.16 for ; Sun, 04 Apr 2010 07:29:14 -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: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:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=ANAwEj0wYtcAeRUJ3ccuzx0g2dNpnEs3iiZaIYUEOBc=; b=KkHFauC0i6bbKqBhP7n+iPpQTgS+JN5ktjl9zKI/Jl/KAfoYmiDIYVvb8J6ZfmbBbf XGjn0QyKr03tIxOIO+o8tzZDCoeJuzUWoQXxnYNGuO2/F3CvZq3sxkzFHRCMMrDf+Ks1 33+xlhJTkRmdNtsyVVY+MHxf+UbqbjKpSy43w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version: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:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=kPyChjOB96SG+68eGMerqa9QgMIZmpWEXgvn4H1+Or6J05k1FUwcygQEohBJnZn0nb WsLALxUOIIFTsdppkBt8v4DeAz3ylrNoUUL7BsVZQUHVf8ZkKIqvrXt6MTdoCHh691fC PfesLZRN8diY/WDTcAF65Cua689nSb3/dG+HA= Received: by 10.220.121.155 with SMTP id h27mr348513vcr.24.1270391339652; Sun, 04 Apr 2010 07:28:59 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.174.133 with SMTP id t5ls1009748vcz.2.p; Sun, 04 Apr 2010 07:28:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.73.21 with SMTP id o21mr1161918vcj.21.1270391337950; Sun, 04 Apr 2010 07:28:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.73.21 with SMTP id o21mr1161917vcj.21.1270391337924; Sun, 04 Apr 2010 07:28:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f183.google.com (mail-qy0-f183.google.com [209.85.221.183]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 29si27641731vws.2.2010.04.04.07.28.56; Sun, 04 Apr 2010 07:28:56 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.221.183 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.221.183; Received: by qyk13 with SMTP id 13so153025qyk.18 for ; Sun, 04 Apr 2010 07:28:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.91.67 with HTTP; Sun, 4 Apr 2010 07:28:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4BB7D709.1050007@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 11:28:56 -0300 Received: by 10.229.191.18 with SMTP id dk18mr7263724qcb.9.1270391336689; Sun, 04 Apr 2010 07:28:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Currency units From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.221.183 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@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/9af00536508e0388 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 11:43 PM, komfo,amonan wrote: > > 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. I will make a comment for each of the reasons, but only one of them (number 2) seems like an actual reason to oppose the proposal. All the others seem at most like reasons to remain indifferent. > 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. Personally, I would agree with that. I wouldn't put cultural neutrality as the main advantage of making use of the ISO codes to create fu'ivla, even though this was what started the idea.. Just forget about cultural neutrality for a minute, is the use of ISO codes to make fu'ivla still a bad idea? > 2) The ISO approach yields hundreds of words which are to me frustratingly > similar. This is the only one that sounds like an actual reason to me. But I'm not sure how valid it is. Of course, if you see an alphabetical list of all of them together they will look very similar, but in practice you would be unlikely to be using more than a few at a time. Consider for example: gugde'i'e: x1 is the country with ISO code 'IE' (Ireland) gugde'isu: x1 is the country with ISO code 'IS' (Iceland) gugdesuzu: x1 is the country with ISO code 'SZ' (Swaziland) Both the suffix -land in English and the prefix gugde- in the fu'ivla give you a hint that it's the name of a country. The difference in the fu'ivla is actually greater than the difference between "Ireland" and "Iceland" in English. Of course, not that many country names in English use the suffix -land, but I think in Chinese most country names do use the same sufffix. (And lujvo ending in "-gu'e" are also quite frequent). > 3) The ISO approach can't help you with defunct countries, so the Inca > Empire will presumably remain {la tauantinsuius}. So what? Nobody is saying that every single fu'ivla ever will have to be based on an ISO code. All the proposal does is assign a fu'ivla to each ISO code. > 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. Again, so what? banbu'u'a: x1 is the language with ISO code 'bua' (Buryat (generic)) banbuxu'u: x1 is the language with ISO code 'bxu' (China Buriat) banbuxumu: x1 is the language with ISO code 'bxm' (Mongolia Buriat) banbuxuru: x1 is the language with ISO code 'bxr' (Russia Buriat) If you wanted to, you could use the language code 'bua' to form nairbu'u'a for the Buryat ethnic group, but that's outside the scope of the proposal. The approach is not meant to provide a method for creating every single fu'ivla ever, it is just a method for creating fu'ivla out of ISO codes, nothing more than that. And if you do happen to like something like 'bangrburiada', there is nothing to stop the two forms from coexisting: banbu'u'a: x1 is the language with ISO code 'bua' (Buryat (genetric)). bangrburiada: x1 is the Buryat language. This proposal does not use type-3 forms at all, so there won't be any conflicts there. > 5) The ISO presumably had different goals in developing the codes than > Lojbanistan does in developing vocabulary. Again, so what? Why does it matter what the goals of ISO are. There is a list of ISO codes. We might wish to have a convenient way of using them as fu'ivla. That's all. > 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. It's actually 7704 language codes, not just 250. It's unlikely that anyone would have the time or the desire to handcraft them one by one. The ISO codes exist. It seems useful to make predicates out of them. This proposal just gives a method that churns out reasonably looking fu'ivla out of two letter or three letter codes. I don't really see anything problematic with that. A different question is whether you would actually use these words, and in what contexts, but why oppose the concept? It's not as if the method blocks a terribly big chunk of fu'ivla space. How many fu'ivla are likely to be otherwise created with forms gugdeXXXX or banXXXXXX? mu'o mi'e xorxes -- 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.