From lojban+bncCJzE7b_XFxC9nbDuBBoEYchKyA@googlegroups.com Thu May 12 09:46:05 2011 Received: from mail-qy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QKZ1T-00019g-IQ; Thu, 12 May 2011 09:46:05 -0700 Received: by qyk36 with SMTP id 36sf7063146qyk.16 for ; Thu, 12 May 2011 09:45:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:mime-version:date:in-reply-to:x-ip :references:user-agent:x-http-useragent:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=BGBiNxWFoQu2ywRfck7TWAyr4KzlLV9l75CLOmYHYEU=; b=NGzcB/ukxMokeScvrvst+cpTzDLgAL1clTYFYqVURwg7C8o+pDxnakwNl6OIHAwQWH OVpEnTqBICjqvh6r4oH6Ff8GrvQIUCr67FR/bMQEP44EKRjOuQjot9hs5cduAsUuhJfo wVAW64Z2BGHhh9mSIg5nt4QowFkQTJfg0GrAU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:mime-version:date:in-reply-to:x-ip:references :user-agent:x-http-useragent:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=o9d9Y03c1JlnNvDlr3gMw7ba3lKNp0vp6k4UcE3MLiaJm+xWktcdHR0ZG174Ds/NXN C4UXP6H0cvQxTV/Ysl0BuT3DsWQelai1ZFCSi7s+ctrlvkvlvWKCzmFeDY2XYCIJEJ57 LY0sQrUPQm0Zm5SnJkkw+Xr0FmYI5njy0x6jw= Received: by 10.224.27.137 with SMTP id i9mr67716qac.43.1305218749321; Thu, 12 May 2011 09:45:49 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.175.74 with SMTP id w10ls359450qaz.0.gmail; Thu, 12 May 2011 09:45:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.140.68 with SMTP id h4mr67451qau.6.1305218748677; Thu, 12 May 2011 09:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com with HTTP; Thu, 12 May 2011 09:45:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:45:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-IP: 128.42.223.57 References: User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/534.24 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/11.0.696.65 Safari/534.24,gzip(gfe) Message-ID: <9199bdb6-3785-4f34-b11c-972009ae9465@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: Contesting a lujvo From: djandus To: lojban X-Original-Sender: jandew@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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What if the deciding organization made a decision like so: specifically define {ri'orpilcinki} and {ri'opracinki} to split the meanings apart into what {ri'orcinki} used to mean and what the opposing party wished for it define {ri'orcinki} to mean either, only to be used when the context can differentiate them. The old word would therefore still be both useful and unambiguous in situations like: 1) using {ri'orpilcinki} once in a conversation that is not contrasting the two words, (or has any reasonable chance of using the other word,) then using {ri'orcinki} from then on. 2) talking in groups that are more partial to one meaning or the other, for example: The workers who extract the dye from {ri'opracinki} probably don't refer to the other insect often. Thus, it would be acceptable, in such company, to use {ri'orcinki} for their favored bug and {ri'orpilcinki} for the other. If a new person enters the conversation, then they would be expected to use the longer lujvo to clarify. All just hypothetical, of course, but I think it would make some sense. Also, I'm thinking it follows the general Lojban idea of "vagueness with context". Also, I'd figure this could be a general solution to such lujvo issues where there are /strong/ risks of competing meanings for the same word. djandus On Apr 23, 5:34=A0pm, Alex Rozenshteyn wrote: > > 2011/4/22 .arpis. : > > > I feel the need to point out, though, that you did not address my con= cern > > > about "atheism". I am aware of the source of ambiguity in the English > > > language, which would not be present in lojban; I chose "atheism" bec= ause > > 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 meani= ng > 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. > > > > =A0I 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. =A0I'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 cink= i}. > Sorry for the ambiguity. > > > > > mu'o > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou= ps > > "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. > > -- > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Alex R --=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.