Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: lujvo

From: Ivan A Derzhanski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:04:46 +0300

Jorge Llambias wrote:
> 
> >But why use a lujvo/tanru anyway? Why not a cmene? It is the name
> >of one particular character, isn't it?
> 
> I don't see a problem with either. We use lots of different
> names and descriptions in other languages, Mary, Holy Mary,
> Virgin Mary, Holy Mother of God, Our Lady of Mercy, Mystic Rose,
> and so many others,

But all of those are proper names -- they are terms rather than
predicates, whether their meaning is transparent or not. A tanru
such as {cevni mamta}, or a lujvo derived from it, is a predicate,
and probably the main thing about predicates is that they can be
predicated of different things or tuples of things, as long as
they fit the definition, which in this case would be something
like `#1 is mother of god #2, of religion #3, by father #4', or
whatever. You see why this makes me think of one of the many
mothers of members of polytheistic pantheons, and why I'd expect
Christians to prefer a cmene.

> there's no reason to restrain ourselves in Lojban.

English, Spanish and Russian have developed into their present forms
whilst being spoken by predominantly Christian societies, and as a
result they have a slant towards Christianity. So `Mother of God'
in English, or _Bogomater'_ in Russian, means the mother of the
Christian deity without any further specification, and the use
of such an expression does not require that the speaker believe
in the existence of the said deity or its mother. But if the
language is not a Christian one (loose turn of phrase here, but
you know what I mean), a literal translation of `Mother of God'
might not be appropriate. The Sanskrit <devamAtar> means `mother
of [Hindu] gods'. And Lojban has no particular connexion to any
religion. So I don't expect `Our Lady of Mercy' to make sense
if translated. Translating _Madonna_ is even more absurd, since
that doesn't have a literal meaning in any current language --
it's a fossilised expression.

> I also don't see what could be offensive about {lo mamta be lo
> cevni} = "a mother of a god" and similar expressions, but then
> people do tend to be touchy about godly matters.

I don't see that as offensive either, although I wouldn't use it
myself (not of Mary, that is). Nor do I see anything unusual in
a god having a mother -- among the world's gods (that is, beings
that have been imagined and worshipped in one place or the other)
those without mothers are a distinct minority.

--Ivan