From 3XSy1SwwJBoooro0uo55wu86u0owz.q20z2xpo1u22uzsu52836.q20@groups.bounces.google.com Thu Apr 01 16:30:00 2010 Received: from mail-yw0-f160.google.com ([209.85.211.160]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <3XSy1SwwJBoooro0uo55wu86u0owz.q20z2xpo1u22uzsu52836.q20@groups.bounces.google.com>) id 1NxTpj-0006pB-FH for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:30:00 -0700 Received: by ywh32 with SMTP id 32sf1706121ywh.28 for ; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:29:49 -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: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=AhfR6erhzS6yi9MESbUmaRLAT0aqixJ8ihVHr+zCR9A=; b=681uFis/B/Cs16hWunekAQgHddTzPl7nW78LrCDZTzXHaiU5jIcR6XMb7P0Nk9evm8 focHCVf29nNAMLWuZomg5GHXNxLn/Y2Sm3kSilF2cGyHCYhjISxGyFVOg/gVbUM9B/+c 3QDidQZVe+Mp3iIhnqPn1VaVPpLd6lZEqjnD4= 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=wpqRdZwS/1B0Q1h6BAZhXlKnHLK19vi3Zt2HjcZjxEDIg830t30u7tDC/saIW9Ioyh hgWtNjgBUDVx7xu7hoI1C32ygIm3M/0W2qdcR4qiXH0iL+86UQlVuVArHfHsDe4NaMjH X/AROYjvR0eqKhVz1BBGPqMAvawQWoW4gnGLw= Received: by 10.91.121.20 with SMTP id y20mr242971agm.23.1270164574088; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:29:34 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.204.223 with SMTP id fn31ls461022ibb.1.p; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:29:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.190.6 with SMTP id dg6mr84635ibb.18.1270164571911; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:29:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.190.6 with SMTP id dg6mr84634ibb.18.1270164571846; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:29:31 -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 24si1274035iwn.1.2010.04.01.16.29.30; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:29:30 -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 13so362520vws.33 for ; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:29:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.74.136 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 16:29:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 19:29:29 -0400 Received: by 10.220.107.162 with SMTP id b34mr792331vcp.215.1270164570048; Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:29:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Summary: Cultural fu'ivla 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/6edf3f52e6f491ba X-Message-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/4395f15574153504 List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00c09f8fea9b01c99f0483353c81 --00c09f8fea9b01c99f0483353c81 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hmm. Isn't there a cultural bias in the ISO codes? My recollection is that, broadly speaking, the larger the language, the closer the code to the autonym. In any event, I think if you look you can find cultural bias all over Lojban. Although it's "designed to be culturally neutral", in practice I think cultural bias can be minimized but not eliminated. Thanks for clearing up the reasoning on the language family codes. mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Christopher Doty wrote: > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 15:07, komfo,amonan wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Christopher Doty wrote: >> >>> This was brought up before, but I don't know that it was closed "closed" >>> exactly. As I said earlier today, though, using the autonyms directly >>> creates any number of problems, one of which could even be the claim that >>> doing so makes these words more culturally biased than the international >>> standard. >> >> >> I disagree. If the Finns call their language 'suomen', I place more weight >> on that than on what other people call it. >> > > But some Finns, namely the Swedish-speaking ones, call the Finnish language > "finska." It seems like, from what you're say below, that we should call > Finnish both finska and suomi. But my question is, why? What does that get > Lojban speakers or learners? > > >> What about groups that don't have names for their languages? >>> >> >> In those cases, an exonym is fine. Although if they have a name for the >> group, maybe use that? >> > > But then you've reintroduced cultural bias: languages which have speakers > who name their own language get to name it in Lojban; if you don't name your > language, you're out of luck. Plus, in most of these groups, their language > is "the people's language" because the name of their group is "the people." > (Birdwalk: this is portrayed with surprising fidelity in _Avatar_.) > > Do we keep the "ki-" prefixes, along with their variants, for all of the >>> Bantu languages? If so, then why not keep the "lingua" with "lingua >>> latina"? >>> >> >> I would dispense with those as derivative, but again, that's not the point >> I'm making. >> > > What about if the language name was borrowed from a Bantu language, and so > speakers don't realize that the ki- prefix is a prefix, and treat it as part > of the word? > > I realize this isn't your point, and to some extent I'm thinking out loud; > it just seems like any sort of autonym-based system is going to have a ton > of problems and inconsistencies and difficulties in coming up with the > lexical items for different languages, as opposed to something based on or > derived from the ISO. If there is going to be that degree of inconsistency, > it seems like there should be some benefit from doing so. > > So I overstated my case; clearly we can't use autonyms for all languages. >> Perhaps there is a general opinion that it is desirable to use the same >> method for devising words for all languages. I would disagree with that & >> argue that it's better to use autonyms where you can (the majority? the vast >> majority?), and exonyms otherwise. But I'm not here to stand in the way of >> progress. >> > > Well, see above; the only way I can see using autonyms sometimes but not > others would introduce a bunch of cultural bias, which was one of my main > goals in doing this. (Also, it depends what you mean by "majority:" if > we're going with only major world languages, the exonym thing would be an > issue, but in terms of actual numbers of languages, disregarding their > distribution or number of speakers, I'd bet the groups with no language name > would outnumber the other, if only slightly.) > > >> Is there, actually, an argument for including the ISO code for the >> language family? Because I still can't wrap my brain around that. And I'd >> like to. (And that is my main point, which I failed to make clear earlier.) >> > > A couple reasons. If you buy the idea that the ISO language code should be > the basis, then you have a problem (if you don't, then you don't): they're > far too short to be fu'ivla. There are other ways to make them longer, of > course (doubling, using the autonym, etc.) but using the language family is, > I think, cool, for a number of reasons: it incorporates information about > the languages into their names, which is great from a linguistic > perspective. Plus, English does something similar, where many language > names end in -ese or -ian. I've been thinking of the ISO language family > codes as a sort of suffix which says, not only, "Hi, I'm a language!" like > -ese does in English, but also says something about where the language comes > from. Which, I will repeat, I think is cool :) I'm not opposed to other > ideas for lengthening the ISO language codes, I just haven't seen any > mentioned on the list yet. > > 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. --00c09f8fea9b01c99f0483353c81 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hmm. Isn't there a cultural bias in the ISO codes? My recollection is t= hat, broadly speaking, the larger the language, the closer the code to the = autonym.

In any event, I think if you look you can find cultural bia= s all over Lojban. Although it's "designed to be culturally neutra= l", in practice I think cultural bias can be minimized but not elimina= ted.

Thanks for clearing up the reasoning on the language family codes.
<= br>mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan


On = Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com> wrote:=
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 15:07, komfo,amonan <komfoamonan@gmail.com> wrote:
This was brought up before, but I don't know that it was closed "c= losed" exactly. =A0As I said earlier today, though, using the autonyms= directly creates any number of problems, one of which could even be the cl= aim that doing so makes these words more culturally biased than the interna= tional standard.

I disagree. If the Finns call their language 'suomen'= ;, I place more weight on that than on what other people call it.
=

But some Finns, namely the Swe= dish-speaking ones, call the Finnish language "finska." =A0It see= ms like, from what you're say below, that we should call Finnish both f= inska and suomi. =A0But my question is, why? =A0What does that get Lojban s= peakers or learners?
=A0
What about groups that don't have names for their languages? =A0

=A0In those cases, an exonym is fine. Altho= ugh if they have a name for the group, maybe use that?

But then you've reintroduced cultural bias: l= anguages which have speakers who name their own language get to name it in = Lojban; if you don't name your language, you're out of luck. =A0Plu= s, in most of these groups, their language is "the people's langua= ge" because the name of their group is "the people." =A0(Bir= dwalk: this is portrayed with surprising fidelity in _Avatar_.)

Do we keep the "ki-" prefixes, along with their variants, fo= r all of the Bantu languages? =A0If so, then why not keep the "lingua&= quot; with "lingua latina"? =A0

I would dispense with those as derivative, but again, that's not the po= int I'm making.

W= hat about if the language name was borrowed from a Bantu language, and so s= peakers don't realize that the ki- prefix is a prefix, and treat it as = part of the word?

I realize this isn't your point, and to some extent= I'm thinking out loud; it just seems like any sort of autonym-based sy= stem is going to have a ton of problems and inconsistencies and difficultie= s in coming up with the lexical items for different languages, as opposed t= o something based on or derived from the ISO. =A0If there is going to be th= at degree of inconsistency, it seems like there should be some benefit from= doing so.

So I overstated my case; clearly we can't= use autonyms for all languages. Perhaps there is a general opinion that it= is desirable to use the same method for devising words for all languages. = I would disagree with that & argue that it's better to use autonyms= where you can (the majority? the vast majority?), and exonyms otherwise. B= ut I'm not here to stand in the way of progress.

Well, see above; the onl= y way I can see using autonyms sometimes but not others would introduce a b= unch of cultural bias, which was one of my main goals in doing this. =A0(Al= so, it depends what you mean by "majority:" if we're going wi= th only major world languages, the exonym thing would be an issue, but in t= erms of actual numbers of languages, disregarding their distribution or num= ber of speakers, I'd bet the groups with no language name would outnumb= er the other, if only slightly.)
=A0
Is there, actually, an argument for including the I= SO code for the language family? Because I still can't wrap my brain ar= ound that. And I'd like to. (And that is my main point, which I failed = to make clear earlier.)

A couple reasons. =A0If you bu= y the idea that the ISO language code should be the basis, then you have a = problem (if you don't, then you don't): they're far too short t= o be fu'ivla. =A0There are other ways to make them longer, of course (d= oubling, using the autonym, etc.) but using the language family is, I think= , cool, for a number of reasons: it incorporates information about the lang= uages into their names, which is great from a linguistic perspective. =A0Pl= us, English does something similar, where many language names end in -ese o= r -ian. =A0I've been thinking of the ISO language family codes as a sor= t of suffix which says, not only, "Hi, I'm a language!" like = -ese does in English, but also says something about where the language come= s from. =A0Which, I will repeat, I think is cool :) =A0I'm not opposed = to other ideas for lengthening the ISO language codes, I just haven't s= een any mentioned on the list yet.

Chris

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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/lojba= n?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.
--00c09f8fea9b01c99f0483353c81--