At 05:55 PM 9/15/01 -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/15/2001 4:04:17 PM Central Daylight Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes:Don't be foolish. I was un-Lojbanizing the name, suggesting that there just might be someone whose name is similar to the name of a year. The full cmenewas {pavosorenanc}, which I split up into two words (much like I called myself{la rabspir.} before I knew that {bs} wasn't allowed).I wish you'd mentioned that you were unlojbanizing, since the rest was lojbanized, I asssume dthat this was meant to be too. Someone with a name like that would, of course, in Lojban, have a quite distinctive name, which was my point -- also rather obliquely. That is, {paVOson REnanc} is not likely to be confused with {pavosoREnanc} -- or it should not be. The use with {ca} or {ca'o} or whatever time operator you use would also count against this (though it could mean "during the lifetime of" apparently). I still don't see the point, unless it is just that using year names is yucky, which I agree with (for all they are convenient).
I think more importantly, that the concern over confusing the possible referent of a name is no more likely than confusing the possible referent of a year number, given the large number of calendars in existence, with different year numberings.
The other issue is whether people want to have the option of using decomposable names. They aren't required, but the name of the language shows that they are in theory permitted for those that choose. Yes there is the possibility of overlapping with a non-decomposable name. My daughter's middle name was intentionally so chosen: "la ka trina" = "Katrina". Which also points out the names that aren't cmevla, allowing years to be expressed by "la pavosoremoi nancu"
lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org