klogi'u

[cbmvax!uunet!mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU!nsn]

|>From: jimc@math.ucla.edu
|:Somewhat agreeing with Arthur Protin: despairing of covering adequately
|:the enormous range of cultures, religions, nations, etc., I suggest that
|:the whole lot be chucked and that le'avla be required for them.
|I support this proposal.  Even if it is not officially accepted,
|I already see myself boycotting them.

It will not be officially accepted, because it's a major change to a base-
lined aspect of the language, and language-reformosis is to be avoided,
however idiotic the gismu happen to be. Stability before individual
criterion of suitability. Sorry, I'm feeling very Espish today.

But the 5 year trial period is there to be taken advantage of, and for
what it's worth, I think I'll join you in this boycott. And I think there
will be others, judging from JL. But let's carry this out in practice,
rather than by prescrption - the establishment of a speech community takes
priority, and fiddling with things gives a bed rep.

|:How would you feel if your native culture were left out?  Particularly if
|:your arch-rival had a gismu?
|I don't know how many lojbanis and lojbanis-to-be are there whose native
|cultures are left out in the cold, but I happen to be one, and I say that
|it is a very unpleasant feeling.

Sheesh, I couldn't even say Zamenhof had Bad Slavic.

|The Synopsis says: "The most important of these words [klogi'u. - I.D.]
|are the klogi'u representing the major cultures, languages, nations, and
|religions of the world."  Who the hell has the right to proclaim some
|cultures major to others?  

I've known the criteria, and Lojbab has just reposted them. They are better
than a kick in the head, but not by much. But at this late stage, can we
realistically stop people - that means US lojbanis - from saying {merko}?
We might have to prepare ourselves for the fact that this boycott may not
be very succesful.

|Re the arch-rival, I suppose the Greeks would qualify (we have fought
|innumerable wars, as have done all neighbours in Europe).  Now I see no
|logic (and Lojban is supposed to contain at least _some_ of this stuff!)
|in the asymmetry which arises when, say, one of the two Balkanic tongues
|should be called {le xelbau} and the other {le bangu po loi nairbylgaria}
|(N.N., p.c.).

There is nothing wrong, however, with saying {ban,rbylgaria}. I hesitate
in doing so because I don't want to multiply cognates, but then I'm thinking
in terms of Esp, where the gismu/le'avla distinction is nonexistent.
[Note: I'm from Crete/Cyprus, so I've been brought up to hate Turks more %^)
If I were from Greek Macedonia, things might be different %^(]

The situation remains unsatisfactory (Lojbab points out that every new
learner complains about it; this is evidence enough for me), but possibly
beyond remedy. Having people realise the semantic equivalence of tanru and
lujvo will help, in that people won't think xeltadni (Hellenistics) a
"real" word, and {banrbylgaria tadni} not. Btw, doesn't tadni deserve a
rafsi ending in a vowel? And shouldn't {to'e} and {no'e} be established
as rafsi?

Oh, and while {merko} cannot die, I hereby announce I will henceforth
use only the form {naireliniko} for Greek. Actually I don't, because
that's a lousy le'avla. God I hate le'avla.