From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Sun Nov 11 13:34:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 11 Nov 2001 21:34:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 37283 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2001 21:34:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Nov 2001 21:34:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n24.groups.yahoo.com) (216.115.96.74) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Nov 2001 21:34:26 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.2.30] by n24.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Nov 2001 21:34:26 -0000 Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 21:34:23 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Loti Message-ID: <9smqsv+fc9i@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <123.72ebacb.291fe6d8@aol.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1634 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 149.225.7.209 From: "A.W.T." X-Yahoo-Profile: aolung --- In lojban@y..., pycyn@a... wrote: > In a message dated 11/10/2001 10:13:19 PM Central Standard Time, > phma@o... writes: > > > Okay. So do Lotus spp. and Ziziphus (I've also seen it spelled Zizyphus) > > lotus deserve to be called latna? > > > > Iffy. I think {latna} was focused on Nelmbo and then Nymphaea by extension > -- the culturally significant loti. Zizyphus (Missouri Code gives that as an > acceptable alternative spelling, though not favored) was also culturally > significant at one time apparently, but never got to cult status in the > civilized world. Lotus is just another bit of fodder and probaly goes with > clover and the like, wherever that is. I'd stick with {latni} being water > lilies and things that look a lot like them. I cannot but agree. "lian lotas kanval lot lotas (lotus)" The Mandarin word "lian2" - Lojban {latna} first of all was taken from - refers to the "holy lotus" of the Indians and the Chinese - "Padma" or Nelumbo nucifero or Nelumbium speciosum. Although these are pretty different from the Egyptian (Nile) and African lotus - Nymphaea lotus and Nymphaea coerulea -, their cultural ("holy") background (having received a gismu place!!!) is comparable. So it seems quite obvious what the designers of Lojban (Loglan?) wanted {latna} to cover. As I clearly see it, {latna} isn't meant to belong to Faboideae -> Loteae -> Lotus (Hornklee/"horn" clover?) e.g. lotus corniculatus (Gemeiner Hornklee/common h.c.?). In German, there's a better differentiation than in English: {latna} - see above - is called "Lotos", whereas "Hornklee" is "Lotus". mu'omi'e .aulun.