Re: [lojban] Re: Parasite

["Gregory Dyke" <gregory.dyke@epfl.ch>]

> > I find your enthusiasm terrifying. Without any disrespect intended to
> > sanxiyn or to the korean who coined _gisaengcung_, this is a poor
> > representation of my idea of a parasite. Why limit this this to the
organic
> > (let alone the living, as the lojban does)?. Also, based upon the
underlying
> > tanru, I am a parasite, because {mi nitcu lemi rirni}
>
>
> What do you mean, "underlying tanru"? A lujvo picks only one of the tanru
> meanings. Some other tanru meaning, under which you fear you fall, has no
> bearing on a lujvo.

I fail to find any meaning of nitcu jmive (or jmive nitcu) which does not
include me.

The only way the corresponding lujvo gets to mean "parasite" is if it's
defined so that ji'etcu means "parasite". You might just as well define
"jmive zei xabju" as meaning parasite.

Although all parasites are probably organic, it is absolutely useless to
include "organic" in the lujvo, much like the word bangu is useless in this
sentence "mi tavla fo le fraso bangu". For me, the idea breaks ro nitcu into
those which are organic and those which are not. So as jmive (or whatever
the Lojban is for organic) does nothing to help people understand in what
way a nitcu differs from a ji'etcu - well it does, doesn't point to
parasite - I'd say that the jmive part is totally useless.

As well as that, I understand jmive as meaning "alive", not organic. Does a
parasite cease being a parasite when it's dead?

How do you define ji'etcu so that it doesn't include creatures which live in
symbiosis (ie. live together but aren't "parasitic")

I don't so much object to ji'etcu being definded as "parasite" - although I
can think of better alternatives - as to Bob's unwarranted enthusiasm faced
with a Korean calque as opposed to the English calques we see so often.

>
> > If you argue that the negative connotation (which is what I don't enjoy
> > about being called a parasite) shouldn't transfer over to Lojban, then
we
> > are left with the fact that parasite = nitcu. And I'll not have malnitcu
> > defined as parasite + negative connotation, as it already means (to my
mind)
> > "addicted"
>
>
> I don't see it in Nora's lujvo list.

http://www.lojban.org/jbovlaste/dict/maltcu


> >
> > I think the whole idea of finding out how other languages does stuff is
> > absolute bullshit. Experienced lojbanists know more about combining
their
> > own concepts to say what they mean than any other language does about
> > combining their own words to creat new ones. Just imagine if we started
> > using some of the ridiculous computer terms that some natlangs have come
up
> > with: "Browser", "butineur" for instance...
>
>
> I don't know what a "butineur" is, but you're probably referring to
> metaphors, which naturally, as a fine upstanding Lojbanist, you regard as
> Satanic. Regardless, tcuji'e hardly falls into that picturesque category;
> it is about as straightforward a rendering as can be imagined.

No, I wasn't thinking of bad metaphors (although I gave that impression), so
much as "wrong" combinations: heart-burn for instance, is not metaphorical,
it just comes from an incorrect sensory perception of both the ailment's
nature and it's location. These combinations are formed from a lack of
understanding of what something is and along what basic concepts it differs
from those thing that it isn't

mu'o