[lojban-beginners] Re: caucme/cmecau (was "xelfanva")

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Brett Williams <mungojelly@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Lojban is still such a small language.  I'm sure having Jbotcan use
> the word "caucme" all day long has a lot of effect on how people
> think.

Exactly, that's why it's unfortunate that they translated "anonymous"
as "caucme", when they could have used "cmecau".

> I know that word is in my mind.  (Jbotcan is back up BTW,
> yay!!! .ui cai)

ui

> This is how I think of it: If you don't have a name, then you're
> cmecau.

Right. You are nameless, anonymous, without a name.

> But someone who's named "Anonymous" does have a name, namely
> "Anonymous".

Anything can be a name, and something descriptive like "anonymous" can
be a name too, yes. But "caucme" does not match "anonymous".

> They have a name which is "caucme", a lacking name, that
> is to say a name which is lacking the property of distinguishing an
> individual.

Yes, "caucme" describes the name, not the person. (It can be used as
the name of a person, anything can be used as a name, but it's
confusing.)

> One such name (the one used on Jbotcan) is zo "caucme"
> itself, which is self-descriptive

But why would a name that describes itself be especially desirable?
What about using "the-twenty-lettered-one" as a name? That one
describes itself too.

>(another perfectly reasonable one
> would be zo "cmecau", describing its user).

Much more reasonable, in my opinion.

> I like both of those words. :)  I also like both "djisku" and "skudji". :)

"djisku" and "skudji" are near synonyms. "cmecau" and "caucme" have
completely different meanings.

mu'o mi'e xorxes