From lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhDVkc7kBBoEnbCILw@googlegroups.com Fri Sep 17 08:28:30 2010 Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OwcrQ-0008Lt-LA; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:28:29 -0700 Received: by yxs7 with SMTP id 7sf2363235yxs.16 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:28:18 -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:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=ITGOXBPCK6mHL82WUo+/vj0IAFaN8WpXN2FG2GwqDIo=; b=2fUBW24I7TnzIGsVOPfIxGkE6CMY+vKD1KxdLmPRa1HS4OO4qf0JvjwtZYzri1JEfJ omSEn5AFG7l83C15AIxDuYcE4SC3kbiF/+EQsXwIG8NiDq8f7XLrUELkNO4pz3BI4gs4 Y7bpiOuYTcmRn9EvOE9k09X5GNv0SKIZWpuiU= 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-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=HRztXAbVTHvEuBvG0/xI2BKOzAY24wlBPG0RNk+wEaw8HqAb9xPnjID/Fs+nAzQ5ST nHEje+7K8yHHAT8sNNNh5Nr/TCFgbYwzeguA/2BcU6BUv2/yDnXRXgHuD89dv045Qpqu LVfyw1q4S8H1qXleJiSkE+pX4j7q2v+hy+u3k= Received: by 10.91.220.5 with SMTP id x5mr683286agq.51.1284737237970; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:27:17 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.91.83.8 with SMTP id k8ls194685agl.0.p; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:27:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.56.9 with SMTP id e9mr3392108aga.11.1284736904080; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:21:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.56.9 with SMTP id e9mr3389654aga.11.1284736796937; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:19:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-f43.google.com (mail-yw0-f43.google.com [209.85.213.43]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id b25si3367836anb.0.2010.09.17.08.19.55; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.43; Received: by ywj3 with SMTP id 3so2386929ywj.2 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:19:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.151.47.9 with SMTP id z9mr2864053ybj.137.1284736795535; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.206.133 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:19:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201009171112.24302.phma@phma.optus.nu> References: <201009162252.27786.phma@phma.optus.nu> <201009171112.24302.phma@phma.optus.nu> Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:19:55 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Naming: Borrowed versus Native From: Jonathan Jones To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.43 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@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: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151750ed3453e83d049076188a --00151750ed3453e83d049076188a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Pierre Abbat wrote: > On Thursday 16 September 2010 23:21:19 Jonathan Jones wrote: > > Unless, you're talking about the Stone Age, I'd say you're argument > doesn't > > hold water. Tell me what you are referring to by "chalk era", and I'll > tell > > you if a fluent English speaker who is ignorant of geology and > paleontology > > (i.e., me) will understand it in English. > > Cretaceous. > No. > > Thank you for pointing out that not all Linnean names are Latin derived. > I > > hereby retract the ", in the Latin language" clause from my statement. > Now, > > to the point of 3), can you provide examples of Linnaen names that are > > *not* descriptive. (For the record, I consider something like > "*Verreaux's > > Eagle*( *Aquila verreauxii*)" to be descriptive.) > > I did already. "Selmes" didn't mean anything until someone decided to call > a > mousebird fossil that. Another is Sio, named for the Scripps Institute of > Oceanography. > So it's the "Selmes mousebird"? And I'd say the Sio is an inventive name, but no less a descriptive name than my eagle example. > > That's actually really interesting. I'm told that French is rather > zealous > > about not borrowing words as well, to the point of having an official > > governmental department with the charge of proscribing French and > figuring > > out what to call new things. (I'm also told that the French /people/ > don't > > care nearly as much as the French /government/, but that's OT IMO.) > > The AF is resisting the influx of English words into French. It apparently > has > no problem with French borrowing words from Arabic, Japanese, Hindi, and > lots > of other languages. > Ah, so they just hate English. I don't blame them. > > My question is, are you mentioning this merely to mention it, or are you > > mentioning it with the intention of providing an argument? > > I'm arguing that even highly conservative languages cannot avoid borrowing > words, so it makes no sense to always prefer native descriptive words. > Probably there's only one language totally devoid of foreign words, namely > Sentinelese. > I disagree that the inevitability of having to borrow is a reason against preferring not to. > Pierre > -- > Don't buy a French car in Holland. It may be a citroen. -- mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.a'o.e'e ko klama le bende pe denpa bu -- 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. --00151750ed3453e83d049076188a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Pierre = Abbat <phma@phma= .optus.nu> wrote:
On Thursday 16 September 2010 23:21:19 Jonathan Jones wro= te:
> Unless, you're talking about the Stone Age, I'd say you're= argument doesn't
> hold water. Tell me what you are referring to by "chalk era"= , and I'll tell
> you if a fluent English speaker who is ignorant of geology and paleont= ology
> (i.e., me) will understand it in English.

Cretaceous.

No.
=A0
> Thank you for pointing out that not all Linnean names are Latin derive= d. I
> hereby retract the ", in the Latin language" clause from my = statement. Now,
> to the point of 3), can you provide examples of Linnaen names that are=
> *not* descriptive. (For the record, I consider something like "*V= erreaux's
> Eagle*( *Aquila verreauxii*)" to be descriptive.)

I did already. "Selmes" didn't mean anything until some= one decided to call a
mousebird fossil that. Another is Sio, named for the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.

So it's the "Selmes mousebi= rd"? And I'd say the Sio is an inventive name, but no less a descr= iptive name than my eagle example.
=A0
> That's actually really interesting. I'm told that French is ra= ther zealous
> about not borrowing words as well, to the point of having an official<= br> > governmental department with the charge of proscribing French and figu= ring
> out what to call new things. (I'm also told that the French /peopl= e/ don't
> care nearly as much as the French /government/, but that's OT IMO.= )

The AF is resisting the influx of English words into French. It appar= ently has
no problem with French borrowing words from Arabic, Japanese, Hindi, and lo= ts
of other languages.

Ah, so they just hate English.= I don't blame them.
=A0
> My question is, are you mentioning this merely to mention it, or are y= ou
> mentioning it with the intention of providing an argument?

I'm arguing that even highly conservative languages cannot avoid = borrowing
words, so it makes no sense to always prefer native descriptive words.
Probably there's only one language totally devoid of foreign words, nam= ely
Sentinelese.

I disagree that the inevitability of = having to borrow is a reason against preferring not to.
=A0
Pierre
--
Don't buy a French car in Holland. It may be a citroen.



--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.a'o.e'e ko klama le bende pe denpa bu

--
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.
--00151750ed3453e83d049076188a--