From lojban+bncCOib25n_BhCBqM3tBBoEhTXhug@googlegroups.com Sat Apr 23 15:34:59 2011 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QDlPh-0003LG-RE; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:34:59 -0700 Received: by fxm14 with SMTP id 14sf2163339fxm.16 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:34:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature: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:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=7+grytmW2EVv4F3T/zlRupexycD4Oc4XlcICP9pkosQ=; b=aHOW2oSbLID0TG3f/OGe8HOS8cyntrpNizXUGSqkbjM5ENxbPLGlC6GzoxXTsYz/Bd dkrjIcegIFCcfB/bTsxx3t0lyRfNJSQLmX45kcJ1zTXQ5uyMDYjAJXbekcj7J35HCxKC sj5c5U/00KgHZcnxIChCSQEhSPEA3s7mXJFbk= 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:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=WQR07vEagYYtSf3PKjoUi1fazs3PfcWTcPn0ZwtAIp+EEkm0bCSkj5g+GZwQDtLIRv x6CzsXyzfwwD5pLxEHD0rQJlexBaSFPfvDqzJoirZB8Nw1bmR8gHAC/KENeaHyzSzPrk mYKIrmP+6DWxQbBbwG+ngn2Iv+1h+2Anuftao= Received: by 10.223.159.69 with SMTP id i5mr337136fax.39.1303598081150; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:34:41 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.223.22.74 with SMTP id m10ls1278100fab.2.gmail; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:34:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.14.137 with SMTP id g9mr183967faa.19.1303598079881; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:34:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.14.137 with SMTP id g9mr183966faa.19.1303598079849; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:34:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f42.google.com (mail-bw0-f42.google.com [209.85.214.42]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 20si457290fav.6.2011.04.23.15.34.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:34:39 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.42; Received: by bwz18 with SMTP id 18so1841600bwz.15 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:34:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.181.7 with SMTP id bw7mr2080079bkb.16.1303598079460; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:34:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.57.137 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:34:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 18:34:39 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Contesting a lujvo From: Alex Rozenshteyn To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: rpglover64@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.42 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rpglover64@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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d99c7b74c7ac04a19d9461 --0016e6d99c7b74c7ac04a19d9461 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > 2011/4/22 .arpis. : > > I feel the need to point out, though, that you did not address my concern > > about "atheism". I am aware of the source of ambiguity in the English > > language, which would not be present in lojban; I chose "atheism" because > it > > is the least inflammatory example of which I could think. > > I might still be missing something here. What you had pointed out > about the word "atheism" was that it's defined differently by > different groups. Yes, there is a conflict of interpretations > regarding this word. And any attempt at defining it unilaterally with > either of the conflicting meanings is bound to be inflammatory (actual > instances can be found on YouTube); why do you say it's the least so? > I say it's the least so because some other examples I thought of are "lesbian", "transsexual", "transgendered", "queer", and "feminist". The fundamental difference is that instead of two groups contesting the meaning of a word that refers to something outside both groups, the word is used to describe one of the groups (call this the in group). Also, the out group's use of the word is frequently based in ignorance. > > What I suggested was: > If Lojban is to have words for each of the different notions of > "atheism", the least inflammatory solution I can think of would be to > 1) leave on one hand the literal translation of the English > (narceisi'o) as ambiguous as it is, and > 2) create on the other hand lujvos that are morphologically more > specific so as to ensure mutual exclusivity between the denotations in > question on a more logical, explicit, and objective ground. > It would be much less controversial to use -- instead of {narceisi'o} > -- {narborceisi'o} for "a belief in the non-reality of god" and > {narkemceisi'o} for "no belief in the reality of god". > > That way, in Lojban: > 1) the ambiguity of the English "atheism" would be optionally > expressible for whatever uncontentious reasons, and > 2) the contest would be optionally discontinuable without giving up > the right to either of the particular definitions through a > particularized lujvo. > > > > With regard to your {ri'orcinki} solution, I can imagine a situation > where > > the dye-ers would use {ri'orcinki} for their insect and the new lujvo for > > the other, and {so'a lo drata} wouldn't change their usage. > > Using {ri'orcinki} to refer to "insects that produce a green dye" > wouldn't be controversial. The problem would be when the dye-ers start > to claim {ri'orcinki} means *only* such insects. > > > I also expect > > that {ri'orcinki} would be used to describe the particular insect and > {crino > > cinki} would be used to describe other green (in some way) insects, > leading > > to a "proper definition" along the lines of "An insect which appears > green; > > used by [group a] to describe [insect 1] and by [group b] to describe > > [insect 2] exclusively." > > How would you tell whether a speaker (or an utterance) is of group A > or B? Would that be a desirable arrangement for the community of a > logical language? > You couldn't, and it wouldn't. I'm claiming that this is a problem. > > And I'm not sure if any tanru could have a dictionary entry or a > prescribed proper definition. > I was claiming that to be the definition if {ri'orcinki}, nor {crino cinki}. Sorry for the ambiguity. > > mu'o > > -- > 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. > > -- Alex R -- 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. --0016e6d99c7b74c7ac04a19d9461 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
2011/4/22 .arpis= . <rpglover64+jbobau@gm= ail.com>:
> I feel the need to point out, though, that you did n= ot address my concern
> about "atheism". I am aware of the source of ambiguity in th= e English
> language, which would not be present in lojban; I chose "atheism&= quot; because it
> is the least inflammatory example of which I could think.

I might still be missing something here. What you had pointed out
about the word "atheism" was that it's defined differently by=
different groups. Yes, there is a conflict of interpretations
regarding this word. And any attempt at defining it unilaterally with
either of the conflicting meanings is bound to be inflammatory (actual
instances can be found on YouTube); why do you say it's the least so?

I say it's the least so because some other exam= ples I thought of are "lesbian", "transsexual", "t= ransgendered", "queer", and "feminist". The fundam= ental difference is that instead of two groups contesting the meaning of a = word that refers to something outside both groups, the word is used to desc= ribe one of the groups (call this the in group). Also, the out group's = use of the word is frequently based in ignorance.

What I suggested was:
If Lojban is to have words for each of the different notions of
"atheism", the least inflammatory solution I can think of would b= e to
1) leave on one hand the literal translation of the English
(narceisi'o) as ambiguous as it is, and
2) create on the other hand lujvos that are morphologically more
specific so as to ensure mutual exclusivity between the denotations in
question on a more logical, explicit, and objective ground.
It would be much less controversial to use -- instead of {narceisi'o} -- {narborceisi'o} for "a belief in the non-reality of god" a= nd
{narkemceisi'o} for "no belief in the reality of god".

That way, in Lojban:
1) the ambiguity of the English "atheism" would be optionally
expressible for whatever uncontentious reasons, and
2) the contest would be optionally discontinuable without giving up
the right to either of the particular definitions through a
particularized lujvo.


> With regard to your {ri'orcinki} solution, I can imagine a situati= on where
> the dye-ers would use {ri'orcinki} for their insect and the new lu= jvo for
> the other, and {so'a lo drata} wouldn't change their usage.
Using {ri'orcinki} to refer to "insects that produce a green= dye"
wouldn't be controversial. The problem would be when the dye-ers start<= br> to claim {ri'orcinki} means *only* such insects.

>=A0 I also expect
> that {ri'orcinki} would be used to describe the particular insect = and {crino
> cinki} would be used to describe other green (in some way) insects, le= ading
> to a "proper definition" along the lines of "An insect = which appears green;
> used by [group a] to describe [insect 1] and by [group b] to describe<= br> > [insect 2] exclusively."

How would you tell whether a speaker (or an utterance) is of group A<= br> or B? Would that be a desirable arrangement for the community of a
logical language?

You couldn't, and it wouldn&= #39;t.=A0 I'm claiming that this is a problem.

And I'm not sure if any tanru could have a dictionary entry or a
prescribed proper definition.

I was claiming that = to be the definition if {ri'orcinki}, nor {crino cinki}. Sorry for the = ambiguity.



mu'o

--
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.




--
=A0=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Alex R

--
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.
--0016e6d99c7b74c7ac04a19d9461--