WikiDiscuss

On 7/8/08, lagejyspa <wikidiscuss@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> But absent any (even quasi-) official lojbanic word, I claim that
> someone, somewhere, is gonna have to try to look up and/or
> guess what the word means, so no language of origin is inherently
> better than other.

I think for cultures, places, etc, the/a local name is inherently preferrable.
For animals/plants, something based on the Linnaean species name
is at least conventionally what has been preferred. In addition, English
is to be especially resisted, because of its dominant place in Lojbanic
culture. In the end it boils down to the preference of the user, of course.

> > I'd use {fau lo nu vy dasni lo nolmapku}.
> >
> That's not too bad, but it introduces words ("vy", "dasni") that are not
> reflected in the original Hebrew.

You did say that you don't consider {dasni} quite a "word" in
{fi'o se dasni}, but it's hard to see how {fi'o} takes away any of its
meaning.

> (vy, I'm willing to accept, though, as probably necessary to avoid
> the ambiguity, even though the ambiguity exists in the original.)
> How do you feel about "fau lo nu vy co'e le nobli nolmapku"?

Or {fi'o se dasni be vy le nobli nolmapku}. If the original is ambiguous,
it might be reasonable to preserve the ambiguity though.

> Just as the English "crown" means "a royal or imperial headdress
> or cap of sovereignty", and is distinct from "hat", so too does the
> Hebrew "keter", as distinct from "kova". So, of course any "crown"
> (absent metaphoric uses) is "royal", just as any "keter" is "malchut"
> (absent metaphoric uses). And yet, both words appear in the Hebrew.

I think the explicit redundancy in Lojban produces quite a different effect,
but there's no law against redundancy.

> > > > {sera'a le nolraitru po'onai la vacTIC. po'u le noltruni'u cu pacyzu'e
> > > >ji'a sera'a ro nobli .e ro prenu vu'o poi zvati ro selje'a po'e la
> > > > .axacyveROC. po'u le nolraitru}: {po'onai} and {ji'a} don't seem to be
> > > > in the right place. For "not only ... but also ..." I suggest
> > > > {gepo'onai ... giji'a ...}.
> >
> Ah, okay, now I understand your objection. How about I simply add the ku,
> and move the ji'a after "sera'a"?

I think in {sera'a ji'a}, {ji'a} would have to apply to {sera'a}. For example
{bau po'onai la lojban sera'a ji'a la lojban}, "not only *in* Lojban but also

• about* Lojban".

mu'o mi'e xorxes