Subject: Re: [lojban] Re^n: literalism

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 11:57:26 -0400

michael helsem wrote:

> >But suppose you want to talk about a racoon, in
> >alanguage which doesn't have a word for it or any notion of it up til
> >the first confrontation.

Then you borrow, as indeed "raccoon" is a borrowing into English from
some Algonquian language.

> another name for racoon is "washbear", & MELA LUMCI CRIBE is
> intelligible.

Not really. It means "x1 is one of those named 'Washing Bear'". I would
think of a person, not a raccoon (raccoons don't have names, as a rule).

> i'm not sure LUMCRIBE would work.

I don't have any problem with the "lumci" part; the "cribe" part is
questionable, but might fly.

-- 
There is / one art || John Cowan <[email-masked]>
no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein