Re: [lojban] Contesting a lujvo

[tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>]

2011/4/22 .arpis. <rpglover64+jbobau@gmail.com>:
> I feel the need to point out, though, that you did not address my concern
> about "atheism". I am aware of the source of ambiguity in the English
> language, which would not be present in lojban; I chose "atheism" because it
> is the least inflammatory example of which I could think.

I might still be missing something here. What you had pointed out
about the word "atheism" was that it's defined differently by
different groups. Yes, there is a conflict of interpretations
regarding this word. And any attempt at defining it unilaterally with
either of the conflicting meanings is bound to be inflammatory (actual
instances can be found on YouTube); why do you say it's the least so?

What I suggested was:
If Lojban is to have words for each of the different notions of
"atheism", the least inflammatory solution I can think of would be to
1) leave on one hand the literal translation of the English
(narceisi'o) as ambiguous as it is, and
2) create on the other hand lujvos that are morphologically more
specific so as to ensure mutual exclusivity between the denotations in
question on a more logical, explicit, and objective ground.
It would be much less controversial to use -- instead of {narceisi'o}
-- {narborceisi'o} for "a belief in the non-reality of god" and
{narkemceisi'o} for "no belief in the reality of god".

That way, in Lojban:
1) the ambiguity of the English "atheism" would be optionally
expressible for whatever uncontentious reasons, and
2) the contest would be optionally discontinuable without giving up
the right to either of the particular definitions through a
particularized lujvo.


> With regard to your {ri'orcinki} solution, I can imagine a situation where
> the dye-ers would use {ri'orcinki} for their insect and the new lujvo for
> the other, and {so'a lo drata} wouldn't change their usage.

Using {ri'orcinki} to refer to "insects that produce a green dye"
wouldn't be controversial. The problem would be when the dye-ers start
to claim {ri'orcinki} means *only* such insects.


>  I also expect
> that {ri'orcinki} would be used to describe the particular insect and {crino
> cinki} would be used to describe other green (in some way) insects, leading
> to a "proper definition" along the lines of "An insect which appears green;
> used by [group a] to describe [insect 1] and by [group b] to describe
> [insect 2] exclusively."

How would you tell whether a speaker (or an utterance) is of group A
or B? Would that be a desirable arrangement for the community of a
logical language?

And I'm not sure if any tanru could have a dictionary entry or a
prescribed proper definition.


mu'o

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.