From 3urq7SwcJBnwq3yqjx1lrfnq.htrqtogfslttlqjlwtzux.htr@groups.bounces.google.com Tue Apr 06 15:51:01 2010 Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <3urq7SwcJBnwq3yqjx1lrfnq.htrqtogfslttlqjlwtzux.htr@groups.bounces.google.com>) id 1NzHbk-0007lc-6f for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:51:00 -0700 Received: by gyd5 with SMTP id 5sf186414gyd.16 for ; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:50:49 -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=4bP2AvqhbBB3jPKwQOmph0OsQylLeNLdj9n4Nb7Pnh0=; b=yGeE1ncAmtec0JpXEqCm+8z33mBalIll0h1v+y4tSCRBc2r0zupiAZ17ea1nv3a3WX saW5dmDxMSp4vEaBTJl/ADIxFOKlJ095EOgCyC0kZX22y2Hxwv0RLfw5MqNDcE4ga6cY azF2JV9nh3JBLEWmaACD0cUxVscm2Wy98yTu4= 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=iVR/1A2+TRPJKnLq9i0OT6jhTKLtk5zXAY4G71rJ6Y60eoJGa+U4Qw8eL2IgukuctY CEneoebNSoCjYM2q40QIhWLElpb1DqhNTE1JBDgCWj8JHp6ykbPypcKtEZzP2zK2R2x0 woj1W8SqPb38BhW2LBu5XjV+488XDgnPD406o= Received: by 10.91.59.11 with SMTP id m11mr565854agk.39.1270594234958; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:50:34 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.90.248.13 with SMTP id v13ls1028159agh.7.p; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:50:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.41.36 with SMTP id o36mr4408772ago.8.1270594230952; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.41.36 with SMTP id o36mr4408615ago.8.1270594226014; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:50:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gy0-f170.google.com (mail-gy0-f170.google.com [209.85.160.170]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 18si682142yxe.8.2010.04.06.15.50.24; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:50:24 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lytlesw@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.160.170; Received: by gyf2 with SMTP id 2so188549gyf.1 for ; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:50:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.91.20 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Apr 2010 15:50:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 18:50:17 -0400 Received: by 10.100.56.33 with SMTP id e33mr17087990ana.157.1270594218151; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:50:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Summary: Cultural fu'ivla From: MorphemeAddict To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lytlesw@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.170 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lytlesw@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: lytlesw@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/6edf3f52e6f491ba X-Message-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/ee74ac4617d98cb2 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f9a5b206f97504839945d4 --001485f9a5b206f97504839945d4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I see it as an emergent property of a language, above the level of words. (OR) The set of words called language X has properties than the words themselves don't have. Words have many properties that are not also properties of the language they are part of. Cultural bias in individual words is not a problem. That's what fu'ivla are for, among other things: importing words from other languages, making such fu'ivla necessarily culturally biased. Those biased fu'ivla don't necessarily make the language as a whole biased. Also, the very existence or absence of a word could be considered culturally biased. That's the problem with the cultural gismu. They are biased towards cultures that have their own gismu. stevo On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Christopher Doty wrote: > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 19:54, MorphemeAddict wrote: > >> Has anyone ever said that individual words shouldn't be culturally biased, >> e.g., your example of "portugala/portugese"? I have only ever heard that >> the *language *shouldn't be culturally biased. >> > > I keep trying to respond to this, but I'm not sure what you mean. If the > bias doesn't come from words, their sources, and their meanings, where do > you see it coming from? > > Chris > > -- > 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. > -- 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. --001485f9a5b206f97504839945d4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I see it as an emergent property of a language, above the level of wor= ds. (OR) The set of words called language X has properties than the words t= hemselves don't have.=A0
=A0
Words have many properties that are not also properties of the languag= e they are part of.
Cultural bias in individual words is not a problem. That's what fu= 'ivla are for, among other things: importing words from other languages= , making such fu'ivla necessarily culturally biased. Those biased fu= 9;ivla don't necessarily make the language as a whole biased.
Also, the very existence or absence of a word could be considered cult= urally biased. That's the problem with the cultural gismu. They are bia= sed towards cultures that have their own gismu.
=A0
stevo

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Christopher Doty= <suomichris@g= mail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 19:54, MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@gm= ail.com> wrote:
Has anyone ever said that individual words shouldn't be culturally= biased, e.g., your example of "portugala/portugese"?=A0 I have o= nly ever heard that the language shouldn't be culturally biase= d.

I keep trying to respond to this, but I'm not sure what you mean. = =A0If the bias doesn't come from words, their sources, and their meanin= gs, where do you see it coming from?

Chris

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to t= he Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send e= mail 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.

--
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.
--001485f9a5b206f97504839945d4--