On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Robert LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
Jonathan Jones wrote:
<snip>
I was thinking of the dog I've read about in some Lojban texts who was
called {la cribe} because his English name was "Bear", and his English
name was "Bear" due to his owner thinking he bore a striking resemblance
to one. I would assume had this jbopre been a native speaker of Lojban,
this resemblance would have caused the dog to be named {la cribe} by his
owner directly, and not merely as a translation of the English.
I believe the stance on that has shifted with time. I think even pe'a has fallen out of use for most.
This whole cmevla->brivla push seems to me to be an effort to make cmene
less outcast, more useful.
I should note that cmene are supposed to be outcast in a way. People talk about type 3 and type 4 fu'ivla, with the latter being thought by some to be the most Lojbanic/least borrowed in having cut itself off from the word it was borrowed from. Meanwhile cmene were type 2 fu'ivla - not even as Lojbanic as a type 3 borrowing. (Type 1 borrowings special-quoted non-Lojban text names).
Names do have a role in language, so no one would try to eliminate them. But since they aren't predicates, they are less Lojbanic.
With the default place structure, I don't see any real "meaningful" use,
other than to remove to words {me la} from bridi in which they are used.
IIRC, however, the proposal allows for defining a unique place
structure, in much the way lujvo and fu'ivla are, and that obviously
would make those cmene which are meaningful use- although I do see it as
a potential for lazy word-crafting, since why would anyone define a
lujvo/fu'ivla for "unicorn" when they could just say {.unicorn.} and
give /it/ the place structure of {pavyseljirna}?
I have used "me la iunikorn", but never to my knowledge without the mela which is to me something essential to the "logicalness" of Lojban.
There was a debate in the early Loglan years about the phrase "Chrysler car", which in fact led to the invention of "me" (which has the same meaning in TLI Loglan as in Lojban). "me la kraislr. karce" is a historically noteworthy phrase. (pc/John Clifford may have more edifying stories about usage of early names, since this invention was really before my time)
"la jbogu'e" still has that place structure, as does la tsani have
its own. Lojban simply doesn't work without place structures.
Yes of course, and I don't use {la jbogu'e} with the intent of removing
those implicit places. The fact that when I say {la jbogu'e} without
them does not mean I am not aware that I implicitly filling them with
{zo'e}.
Good. But compare this with selpa'i's response to me today where he says that his name is "selpa'i" and NOT "selpa'i be X2", which is non-Lojbanic if not anti-Lojbanic.
Yes. I very much disagree with his reasoning.
That dog named cribe has to allow for the implicit places to be part of the name. Lojban is more than an aesthetic collection of sounds (I hope, especially since I long ago decided that some aspects of the language sound were aesthetically displeasing to me - especially that dominance of fricatives that makes speaking Lojban quickly a little like pronouncing "she sells seashells by the seashore" for me, and I am especially poor at those sorts of tonguetwisters)
I've thought of the Lojbanic "cmevla" as you call them as being
somewhat akin to Internet handles, which are sometimes identifying,
but as often as not are obscuring of the real identity. I didn't
choose to call myself "lojbab". People started calling me that, and
they weren't Lojbanists, and it became how I was most commonly
known. It was also useful because at the time there were more than
one "Bob" active in the community. But there is no real meaning, and
hence no predication, and thus I can have all kinds of fun with the
fact that I have nothing to do with logical-soap, whatever that
would be.
I mean, what would be the cmene for {la dansu kansa be lo labno}?
That would in fact be an example of a description being used
legitimately as a name (not having seen the movie, so I don't know
how well it applies), since it invokes a predication, which can be
manipulated linguistically using the tools of Lojban as can any
predication.
Let me make sure I'm understanding this correctly. What you're saying
is, if a person was named something like the above, you would consider
it a name, even though it is not a cmene?
I would consider it a description, which if marked with "la" makes it a explicitly a name. What semantic distinctions arise from identifying something as a name as opposed to a normal description, I am not sure (but it would surely encompass the relevant place structures). But then I was always trying to be as noncommittal as possible with respect to semantics in designing the language.
Yes, you're very good at that. :)