[lojban] Re: Contesting a lujvo

[djandus <jandew@gmail.com>]

What if the deciding organization made a decision like so:
specifically define {ri'orpilcinki} and {ri'opracinki} to split the
meanings apart into what {ri'orcinki} used to mean and what the
opposing party wished for it
define {ri'orcinki} to mean either, only to be used when the context
can differentiate them.

The old word would therefore still be both useful and unambiguous in
situations like:
1) using {ri'orpilcinki} once in a conversation that is not
contrasting the two words, (or has any reasonable chance of using the
other word,) then using {ri'orcinki} from then on.
2) talking in groups that are more partial to one meaning or the
other, for example:
The workers who extract the dye from {ri'opracinki} probably don't
refer to the other insect often. Thus, it would be acceptable, in such
company, to use {ri'orcinki} for their favored bug and {ri'orpilcinki}
for the other. If a new person enters the conversation, then they
would be expected to use the longer lujvo to clarify.

All just hypothetical, of course, but I think it would make some
sense. Also, I'm thinking it follows the general Lojban idea of
"vagueness with context".
Also, I'd figure this could be a general solution to such lujvo issues
where there are /strong/ risks of competing meanings for the same
word.

djandus

On Apr 23, 5:34 pm, Alex Rozenshteyn <rpglove...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2011/4/22 .arpis. <rpglover64+jbo...@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.
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> --
>           Alex R

-- 
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.