[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Yacht



On Saturday, September 15, 2012 2:42:57 AM UTC+4, Mark wrote:
It's a general peeve of mine.  People seem to expect that there must be *a* word that *exactly* translates some nuance of meaning that their native language happens to encapsulate in one lexeme.  A lojban of all fu'ivla is hardly a Lojban.  And even if you find one, even if there *is* a good lujvo for it, I'm still not sure you shouldn't fall back on the general gismu term once it's been introduced, or at least for variety in the text, like a synonym.


I completely agree. When we get more nalglico jbopre they will try to import words from their own mother tongues. This will turn lojban into a semantic junkyard of all natlangs in the world. Well, nothing wrong in {iaxto}. Nothing wrong in {taksi} for "taxi". 
We are a global community. Usage decides in lojban semantics (but not in lojbanic syntax where I completely agree with Robin, syntax must be strictly regulated).



We've also got the brod* series.  Mathematicians have no problem defining their specialized operations at the beginning of a paper and then using the symbols.  Particularly for technical or even slightly technical work, it's quite reasonable to explain these concepts you're going to be using, and take your time and don't try to cram them all into a lujvo, and simple use {ce'u} to assign it to a brod*, or even better, to a nonce lujvo that people reading the paper will now be able to understand even though it is highly simplified.

And don't get me started on fu'ivla...

~mark

On 09/14/2012 05:57 PM, .arpis. wrote:
I'm not averse to that.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Mark E. Shoulson <ma...@kli.org> wrote:
On 09/14/2012 03:00 PM, .arpis. wrote:
It seems to me against the spirit of lojban to try to define a lujvo to mean something so specific (and culturally specific) as "yacht"; I'd use {surblo} to mean "boat used for relaxation" and let context disambiguate whether I meant cruise ship or yacht.
I have yet to be convinced that simply {bloti} isn't sufficient.  It depends on the context, of course, but even if you need to say it's a yacht and not just a boat, why not _explain what you mean_, in lujvo, tanru, even whole phrases, and then just call it a {bloti} from then on?

~mark


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




--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/5GQ3d3tM3LoJ.
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.