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?
I say it's the least so because some other examples I thought of are "lesbian", "transsexual", "transgendered", "queer", and "feminist". The fundamental difference is that instead of two groups contesting the meaning of a word that refers to something outside both groups, the word is used to describe one of the groups (call this the in group). Also, the out group's use of the word is frequently based in ignorance.
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?
You couldn't, and it wouldn't. I'm claiming that this is a problem.
And I'm not sure if any tanru could have a dictionary entry or a
prescribed proper definition.
I was claiming that to be the definition if {ri'orcinki}, nor {crino cinki}. Sorry for the ambiguity.