for the Lojban symbol see: http://people.fix.no/arj/lojban/jbosinxa.html
.i se'a .o'acai ri'esai le lojbo noi banli zo'u na'ebo ly. ca'a kalci bangu
.i ma traji le ka jbopa'i
.i ju'ocai le pruxi po'e ly. cu prane
.i ga'i .i'i le jbopei le rarbaupei cu zmadu le ka logji je vlipa
.i .iisai .i ko terpa sai le bazu fatci jbopei .iosai
See le pu naje ca xamsi cnita.
Since I think we need to jettison all cultural gismu (except "lojbo") and replace them with stage threes, Esperanto is no exception! --xod
Why should lojbo be an exception? What's wrong with banrlojbani?
(Well for one thing, the "-ban" at the end means bangu; that word you created thus means "language, logical language".) On the other hand, There is no need for us to try not to be culturally chauvinistic. --xod
No, lojban is a name. I can also talk about kulnrlojbani and gugrlojbani.
Are you telling me that 'lojban' does NOT mean lojbo bangu? --xod
No, it doesn't. It supposed to remind you of logji bangu, but it's a name. If you want it to mean that, use lojbau. Likewise, if you want a word meaning lojbo bangu, use jbobau.
I still don't get it. Are you saying we should be culturally chauvinistic? If there's some reason that all the other cultural gismu should be dropped, why doesn't it apply to lojbo? (Not that I'm agreeing, just wondering what the reason is.)
I agree. Lojbo as the only cultural gismu makes lojban culture seem superior to other cultures. I thought our goal was neutrality...
I really don't see why cultural neutrality has anything to do with Lojban culture! Are we supposed to be free of that too? As soon as we see ourselves establishing a Lojban culture we're supposed to stop, for fear of malylojbo? Clearly if the idea of neutrality is taken to ridiculous extremes, it contradicts itself. If SW is valid, there exists a (largely-undiscovered) Lojban culture. If we waste our time with Lojban it's because we think such a culture would be a good thing. If you're a Lojban Chauvinist like me, you absolutely believe that a Lojbanic culture is, in fact, superior to any other. --xod
I don't have a problem with Lojban culture, but if fu'ivla are better than gismu for talking about all the other cultures, why is lojbo an exception?
So we can use the jbo- rafsi. --xod
Then why doesn't the mer- rafsi justify the existence of merko?
Because this is the Lojban language, not the American language! Therefore a lojbocentric viewpoint need not even be justified. --xod
I just remind you once again of Ralph Dumain's dictum: Cultural Neutrality != Cultural Nullity. (And he thinks Lojban has the latter) — nitcion.
Lojban culture superior to all others? Isn't that dangerous? When europe thought that, look what happened. Slave trade, exploitation of native americans, destruction of the largest and most developed country then in existence. We have a word for this, xod. Xenophobia. I agree that cultural gismu put some cultures 'ahead' of others, so if we remove them we should remove lojbo. Lojban culture can exist, but lojban chauvinism is just anti-nolylojbo in disguise. I prefer the ADDITION of gismu for cultures we lack, such as norgo. I second the motion.
We don't have enough extra potential gismu to accomodate all the cultures and languages in existence. 'Yes we do.' [For small values of 'yes'.] 'See Free Gismu Space'
Furthermore, such approximations are very far from the original names, whereas with fu'ivla we can do much better — we can approximate the original names to the extent that our letters let us.--xod
Cultures evolve. Are all cultures interchangeably equal and equivalent? No. If you hate all those aforementioned atrocities, let's do what we can do evolve past them. Part of this evolution is the development of cultural elements that are better than previous ones. I happen to think that a logical language is better than a natural language at enabling its speakers to deal with reality and logic and complexity. The atrocities you are wary of might be regarded as antithetical to the evolution I am discussing. --xod
Europe didn't colonize the whole world because they had racial superiority theories, but rather because they gained the tech superiority to pull it off. --xod
just seems to me like a language/culture ought to be allowed to have a native word for itself, and then borrow in the names of the other cultures. however, why argue? both systems are compatible: start making a list of cultural fu'ivla and then people who agree will use them. people who don't agree will continue to use the cultural gismu. the inferior words will die out sooner or later. --jay
Well, some cultures use words like "jetnu" or "prenu" to refer to themselves. How about "la jetybau"? — Adam (jdice cumki bangu)
Because names have to end with consonants followed by full stops... try le jetybau or la jetyban.
No, they don't; selma'o LA can appear anywhere LE can. (There's the stace = Frank example in the book somewhere.) Personally, I find morphological cmene to be ugly and hard to pronounce, and I suggest using them as little as possible (certainly not when there's a clearer selbri).
ma goi ko'a pare'u morsi mu'i le nu prami le lojbo kulnu i a'ocai ko'a na renro lo vinji poi vasru ko'a e so'o drata prenu ku'o lo dinju poi vasru so'i prenu i mi'e tinkit
{mrobi'o} Can one be dead (or anything else) for a motive?