Subject: remoi malglico (was: A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o

From: Invent Yourself <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:50:11 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Nick NICHOLAS wrote:

>
> cu'u la xod.
>
> >Are we then agreeing that ka fasnu = si'o fasnu?
>
> Well, we were until pc came along. :-)

I want to argue against And's proposal too, but my arguments are based on
the differences between "relationship" or "quality", and "idea". They are
not based on any differences between "ckaji le ka ce'u broda ce'u" and
"sidbo". Here again, are we letting English concepts poison our
understanding of similar-but-different gismu? This is what Nick did with
cukta, and what I did with krici. The lesson is not to shut up, but to try
to think outside the box imposed by English mindset.

One level of malglico is using English grammar and idiom, but the second
level, in which we still wallow, is using specific concepts from English
imported into Lojban. One would think our non-English speaking friends
could help us Anglos see this, but I suspect they are all so fluent in
English that they too carry the memes, having learned Lojban from English,
and may find it hard to think about Lojban in anything else. They are,
for the purpose of this discussion, honorary Anglos.

We need to start using Lojban in a non-English way.

At the absolute least we should broaden our notions of all these jbovla so
when the meanings evolve into more specific concepts, they have a chance
of ending up elsewhere than their English keywords.

-----
"It is not enough that an article is new and useful. The Constitution
never sanctioned the patenting of gadgets. [...] It was never the object
of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every
shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously
occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of
manufactures." -- Supreme Court Justice Douglas, 1950