From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Dec 06 16:47:52 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 7 Dec 2002 00:47:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 80502 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2002 00:47:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Dec 2002 00:47:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Dec 2002 00:47:52 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18KT8K-0005Fl-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 16:47:52 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18KT8B-0005F5-00; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 16:47:43 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 06 Dec 2002 16:47:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.113]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18KT86-0005EE-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 16:47:38 -0800 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-63-172.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.63.172]) by lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6A083D109 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 01:47:04 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: penguins, neologisms, cratylism (was: RE: penguins Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 00:49:15 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <02120612362504.02354@neofelis> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-archive-position: 3175 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin pier: > On Thursday 05 December 2002 18:58, And Rosta wrote: > > I know why you think that; there are sound rational grounds > > > > But {sfenisku} was my favourite. Long-form fuhivla do indeed seem > > too clunky, while lujvo can seem blandly homogeneous and lacking > > in distinctiveness, especially in what one might call 'cratylism', > > the property of form mystically embodying meaning. I've there's > > one person whose judgement I'd trust on neologisms, it would be > > Michael Helsem > > But if lo sfenisku is a penguin, what is lo nisku? If we are asking questions like these, then maybe Lojban really is moving from a mere design to a proper language that we explore & discover. Anyway, {sfenisku} = "surface nisku" = penguin. What do penguins have to do with surfaces? Easy -- they stay on it, if it is the surface of land/ice -- they don't fly -- or they dive beneath it if it is the surface of water. So a nisku is some kind of bird, a class that includes penguins, such that penguins are distinctive within that class in regard to their special connection with surfaces. Perhaps I should add {nisku} to the list of unofficial gismu? > Between {sfeniku} and {sfenisu}, I think I prefer {sfenisu}, as there is some > Greek root -sphenic which I think means "wedgelike" (I've actually seen > "sphenic" only in "tribosphenic", which is a type of molar) I don't have access to an etymology of _spheniscus/spheniskos_, but it at least looks like it would mean "little wedge, wedgelet". But I don't see why that would lead us to prefer {sfenisu} over {sfeniku}. --And.