Oren said:
> I like it because
> * it coins meaningful words (you know by the rafsi what it is)
> * it coins words rather uniformly, about as 'neutral' as you can get
> * it defers difficult distractions, like international standards, to
> a larger, more accountable and qualified decision-making body
>
> and also
> * it's automated
> * the script is 1KB
>
> co'o mi'e korbi
Thanks :)
El 04/04/2010 11:28 a.m., Jorge Llambías escribió:
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 11:43 PM, komfo,amonan <komfoamonan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I find myself vehemently opposed to these proposals. Some of the reasons
>> I've stated earlier in this or another related thread, but to summarize.
>
> I will make a comment for each of the reasons, but only one of them
> (number 2) seems like an actual reason to oppose the proposal. All the
> others seem at most like reasons to remain indifferent.
>
>> 1) There is cultural bias all over the language. Whatever bias is perceived
>> as a result of autonymous vocabulary creation isn't IMHO much of a big deal
>> in comparison.
>
> Personally, I would agree with that. I wouldn't put cultural
> neutrality as the main advantage of making use of the ISO codes to
> create fu'ivla, even though this was what started the idea.. Just
> forget about cultural neutrality for a minute, is the use of ISO codes
> to make fu'ivla still a bad idea?
I didn't noticed other points in the language with cultural bias...
that's an awful thing, and it should be removed, only if it is possible.
But it's true this method is beyond the cultural problem. We have the
opportunity to coin uniformly words for several areas, without much work.
>
>> 2) The ISO approach yields hundreds of words which are to me frustratingly
>> similar.
>
> This is the only one that sounds like an actual reason to me.
>
> But I'm not sure how valid it is. Of course, if you see an
> alphabetical list of all of them together they will look very similar,
> but in practice you would be unlikely to be using more than a few at a
> time.
>
> Consider for example:
>
> gugde'i'e: x1 is the country with ISO code 'IE' (Ireland)
> gugde'isu: x1 is the country with ISO code 'IS' (Iceland)
> gugdesuzu: x1 is the country with ISO code 'SZ' (Swaziland)
>
> Both the suffix -land in English and the prefix gugde- in the fu'ivla
> give you a hint that it's the name of a country.
> The difference in the fu'ivla is actually greater than the difference
> between "Ireland" and "Iceland" in English.
>
> Of course, not that many country names in English use the suffix
> -land, but I think in Chinese most country names do use the same
> sufffix. (And lujvo ending in "-gu'e" are also quite frequent).
This is actually ugly to me too.
However, I believe what xorxes said: they are awful in a list. It's
unlikely to see a book of geography (for example) with few of this in an
only paragraph.
Moreover, they can live among other fu'ivla. So, I think this ISO
fu'ivla shall be used in scientific writings, or when you are a person
that don't use that word too much. But when is your country (or language
or currency), or you're familiar with it (because your parents are from
there), perhaps you'll be more comfortable with a autonym fu'ivla.
And, finally, they are easy to remember. This may seem a fraud, but it's
because you only need to remember two or three letters, and usually
those letters will resemble the name of the country; with the letters,
you build the fu'ivla.
>
>> 3) The ISO approach can't help you with defunct countries, so the Inca
>> Empire will presumably remain {la tauantinsuius}.
>
> So what? Nobody is saying that every single fu'ivla ever will have to
> be based on an ISO code. All the proposal does is assign a fu'ivla to
> each ISO code.
There is nothing wrong in not having a fu'ivla for that; if you need it,
and it doesn't exists, you coin it.
>
>> 4) The ISO approach can't help you with ethnicities, so a Buryat will
>> presumably be {*prenrburiada} or {*se natmrburiada} or {*burdiada}, while
>> the Buryat language will carry an ISO code.
>
> Again, so what?
>
> banbu'u'a: x1 is the language with ISO code 'bua' (Buryat (generic))
> banbuxu'u: x1 is the language with ISO code 'bxu' (China Buriat)
> banbuxumu: x1 is the language with ISO code 'bxm' (Mongolia Buriat)
> banbuxuru: x1 is the language with ISO code 'bxr' (Russia Buriat)
>
> If you wanted to, you could use the language code 'bua' to form
> nairbu'u'a for the Buryat ethnic group, but that's outside the scope
> of the proposal. The approach is not meant to provide a method for
> creating every single fu'ivla ever, it is just a method for creating
> fu'ivla out of ISO codes, nothing more than that.
>
> And if you do happen to like something like 'bangrburiada', there is
> nothing to stop the two forms from coexisting:
>
> banbu'u'a: x1 is the language with ISO code 'bua' (Buryat (genetric)).
> bangrburiada: x1 is the Buryat language.
>
> This proposal does not use type-3 forms at all, so there won't be any
> conflicts there.
We where not talking about ethnicities. If someone need to talk about
any of those, he should coin it.
>
>> 5) The ISO presumably had different goals in developing the codes than
>> Lojbanistan does in developing vocabulary.
>
> Again, so what? Why does it matter what the goals of ISO are. There is
> a list of ISO codes. We might wish to have a convenient way of using
> them as fu'ivla. That's all.
>
>> I laud all the work y'all have put into generating this vocabulary. Leo just
>> asked for opinions, so I gave one.
Yes, thanks :)
>>
>> I don't have enough time to devote to Lojban these days to generate 250
>> autonymous words for languages & put them into jbovlaste, or even to decide
>> why they should be brivla rather than cmevla. Shrug. But it's a fascinating
>> discussion.
>
> It's actually 7704 language codes, not just 250. It's unlikely that
> anyone would have the time or the desire to handcraft them one by one.
>
> The ISO codes exist. It seems useful to make predicates out of them.
> This proposal just gives a method that churns out reasonably looking
> fu'ivla out of two letter or three letter codes. I don't really see
> anything problematic with that.
>
> A different question is whether you would actually use these words,
> and in what contexts, but why oppose the concept? It's not as if the
> method blocks a terribly big chunk of fu'ivla space. How many fu'ivla
> are likely to be otherwise created with forms gugdeXXXX or banXXXXXX?
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
About this, I forgot to mention I asked first if people like the idea to
know if this was actually going to be used. And if people oppose the
idea, to know if it is just plain wrong, and shouldn't be done; and to
continue discussing this.
There might be people who won't like it. That's not a bad thing; just
don't use this ugly fu'ivla. That might be the solution for many
allegations. But if your guts tell you this is actually wrong, let us
know why, so we can correct them.
mu'o mi'e .leos.
--
My lojban journal: http://learninglojban.wordpress.com
My personal blog: http://leomolas.tumblr.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature