[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Parasite
- To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
- Subject: Re: Parasite
- From: "sshiskom" <mathmaniac@hanmail.net>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 08:16:29 -0000
- In-reply-to: <007501c32422$6c8b6ab0$8d9eb280@ic.intranet.epfl.ch>
- User-agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
G. Dyke wrote:
> I don't so much object to ji'etcu being definded as "parasite" --
> although I can[sic] think of better alternatives - as to Bob's
-- Isn't it "can't"? If not, suggest one!
> unwarranted enthusiasm faced with a Korean calque as opposed to the
> English calques we see so often.
I agree that {jmive} is not "saeng" as in "gisaeng", and use of the
same word for both concept of "alive" and "organic" is culture-centric,
metaphorical, therefore maybe non-lojbanic.
But don't call it "Korean calque"! It's rather "CJK calque", since
anyone from Chinese, Japanese, Korean, i.e. Han-Ideographic culture
will recognize it. You are right in that if "English calque" is bad,
"CJK calque" is equally bad, but I should point out that it is not
worse, since CJK population is not smaller than English population.
mi'e sanxiyn.