From lojban+bncCJGY6cDlFhCDwdTnBBoE4EQg6Q@googlegroups.com Tue Nov 30 08:04:33 2010 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PNSgv-00020x-Sq; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:04:33 -0800 Received: by fxm10 with SMTP id 10sf1464299fxm.16 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:04:23 -0800 (PST) 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:received:mime-version:received :in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject: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=DZsxwMm6LuB8Fuh7g01+UNDMPI0WoxbRieiCbwwj4Zs=; b=ET0KonekwlS/5p1VlXAhYKC7QOXVF2Zgp0eiMf5JlRZVHb1OtHZrtdSZL1IQRORRHc kSqvxBdeLhAmmQpTkm9I6CukldCuB4oxfDJMfqdPssfLKlclvrYEA8saweYY6pYFHwsP 1N8b1UAiWHO3WtZIWOCtMuY4nWEjH+6yEZ6mQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject: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=lQzEAZTM+IJWkvInHla5rk4rehVYBoizTpn+M+Q4VxznTyi2uwDYTZzXNOOJC07u3l zPHnwS/1jsG60AbgX3BoF6dV0Ywu9+OG9q5KAAzz7G1WR9KqVHBMw2Fs6UGKy083U7gO b2iZyP8V+nNReDxtBHwcC8tWjlxSelUXOAqr0= Received: by 10.223.74.202 with SMTP id v10mr328127faj.38.1291133059507; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:04:19 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.32.79 with SMTP id b15ls3389878bkd.0.p; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:04:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.177.148 with SMTP id bi20mr793596bkb.22.1291133058635; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:04:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.177.148 with SMTP id bi20mr793595bkb.22.1291133058577; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:04:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f42.google.com (mail-fx0-f42.google.com [209.85.161.42]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 17si930556bkn.7.2010.11.30.08.04.17; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:04:17 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of get.oren@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.42; Received: by mail-fx0-f42.google.com with SMTP id 11so4496809fxm.1 for ; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:04:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.79.7 with SMTP id n7mr1496933fak.33.1291133057310; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:04:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.105.207 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:03:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <547f2fd5-c8a4-4dec-acee-97412386bf83@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com> References: <547f2fd5-c8a4-4dec-acee-97412386bf83@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com> From: Oren Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:03:57 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Question about apparent inconsistency with "nixli". To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: get.oren@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of get.oren@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.42 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=get.oren@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=485b393ab8653d1fea04964757bc --485b393ab8653d1fea04964757bc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable coi pan, The patterns weren't designed that way. Gismu were all generated to approximate common words (with weights for more spoken languages) from the six original source languages. It just so happens that: English:"man", Chinese"nanren", Arabic: "nsan" etc..-> { nanmu } Chinese"nanhai", Spanish "ninio," Arabic: "uladn" etc.. -> { nanla } I guess the abundance of "nan"-like syllables in natural languages was in part to the (weighted) chinese character "nan" (=E7=94=B7) that's in both o= f them, in conjunction with similar coincidental syllables in other heavily weighte= d languages. The female counterpart "ni" (=E5=A5=B3) character seems to have also influe= nced the female gismus, but without as much agreement on that second consonant. Hope that clears it up a little! co'o On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 07:18, Pan Mistwood wrote: > Back when I first dove into learning Lojban, I noticed an apparent > inconsistency with four gismu. And as far as I can tell, there's no > reason for it, but I could be mistaken. So, after much > procrastination, I'm asking about it here. (And as far as I could find > with Google Web search and a search within this group, it hasn't been > brought up before, which is rather surprising to me.) > > The gismu "nanmu" virtually means the English "man" or, more > generally, "male humanoid". The gismu "ninmu" virtually means the > English "woman" or "female humanoid". The gismu "nanla" virtually > means the English "boy". Now, I understand that they are not preferred > over the gismu "verba", "remna", and "prenu", but they do exist and > are recognised as Lojbanic gismu. > > From those gismu, I can see a pattern. "nanmu" and "nanla" share "na-" > while "nanla" and "nanmu" share "-mu". Following this pattern, the > gismu virtually meaning the English "girl" would be "ninla"; "ni-" as > in "ninmu" and "-la" as in "nanla". However, the gismu is actually > "nixli". My question: as "ninla" is valid gismu syntax, is consistent > with "nanmu", "nanla", and "ninmu", and is not already used to mean > something else, why is "nixli" used instead? > > -- > 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=3Den. > > --=20 Oren Robinson (315) 569-2888 102 Morrison Ave Somerville, MA 02144 --=20 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. --485b393ab8653d1fea04964757bc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
coi pan,

The patterns weren't= designed that way. Gismu were all generated to approximate common words (w= ith weights for more spoken languages) from the six original source languag= es. It just so happens that:

English:"man", Chinese"nanren", Arabic: = "nsan" etc..-> { nanmu }
Chinese"nanhai", = Spanish "ninio," Arabic: "uladn" etc.. -> { nanla }<= /div>

I guess the abundance of "nan"-like syllables= in natural languages was in part to the (weighted) chinese character "= ;nan" (=E7=94=B7) that's in both of them, in conjunction with simi= lar coincidental syllables in other heavily weighted languages.=C2=A0

The female counterpart "ni" (=E5=A5=B3) chara= cter seems to have also influenced the female gismus, but without as much a= greement on that second consonant.

Hope that clear= s it up a little!=C2=A0

co'o

On Tu= e, Nov 30, 2010 at 07:18, Pan Mistwood <panmistwood@gmail.com> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> Back when I first dove into learning Lojban, I noticed an apparent
inconsistency with four gismu. And as far as I can tell, there's no
reason for it, but I could be mistaken. So, after much
procrastination, I'm asking about it here. (And as far as I could find<= br> with Google Web search and a search within this group, it hasn't been brought up before, which is rather surprising to me.)

The gismu "nanmu" virtually means the English "man" or,= more
generally, "male humanoid". The gismu "ninmu" virtually= means the
English "woman" or "female humanoid". The gismu "n= anla" virtually
means the English "boy". Now, I understand that they are not pref= erred
over the gismu "verba", "remna", and "prenu",= but they do exist and
are recognised as Lojbanic gismu.

From those gismu, I can see a pattern. "nanmu" and "nanla&qu= ot; share "na-"
while "nanla" and "nanmu" share "-mu". Follow= ing this pattern, the
gismu virtually meaning the English "girl" would be "ninla&q= uot;; "ni-" as
in "ninmu" and "-la" as in "nanla". However, = the gismu is actually
"nixli". My question: as "ninla" is valid gismu syntax,= is consistent
with "nanmu", "nanla", and "ninmu", and is no= t already used to mean
something else, why is "nixli" used instead?

--
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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.




--
Oren Robinson
(315) 569-2888
102 Morrison Ave
Some= rville, MA 02144

--
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.
--485b393ab8653d1fea04964757bc--