xebro

[ I think I forgot to forward this to the list.  Sorry if you all get this
twice. ]

>From: cbmvax!eric@uunet.UU.NET (Eric S. Raymond)
>Date: Fri, 7 Jun 91 12:01:30 EDT
>X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL13]

>It is, in fact, correct Islamic theology to regard `Allah' and `Jehovah' as the
>same god (and, in fact, pious Moslems revere Jesus as one of the seven great
>prophets leading up to `the Seal of the Prophets', Mohammed).

Actuallu, that's what I heard.  Good to have it confirmed, though.

> [ la djan. kau,n : ]
>> My personal view is that "jegvo" means "God" and that Allah cu jegvo.
>While this is correct Islamic theology, I must differ with the implied
>assumption.  It is ethnocentric, and far too partial to the Judeo-Christian-
>Islamic traditions, to identify `jegvo' with `God'.  Other traditions have
>omnipotent creator-gods too; consider the `Atman' of Hinduism as a fine
>example of one that won't fit into a linguistic box cognate to JHVH.  Indeed
>Mr. Cowan's view strays perilously close to giving lojban an established
>religion.... !!! :-)

I think I have to agree withEric here.  After all, we have a perfectly
respectable non-cultural gismu for divine being here, namely cevni.  If you
for some reason need to express an all-powerful creator-God as opposed to a
minor deity (assuming the speaker is not being terribly culturally
neutral), well, that's why le cevni created tanru and lujvo.  Saying la
.alex. cu cevni I think covers it.

>Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the deities of all the `ethical
>monotheisms' had sufficient in common to be described by the same gismu, *and*
>that their worshipers were willing to swallow a gismu so patently derived from
>JHVH...this arrangement would *still* do semantic violence to persons who,
>like myself, adhere to notions of `godhood' more complex and subtle than the
>one implied by `jegvo'.  Even if you don't find my out-and-out polytheism
>respectable, you might at least consider the feelings of the world's
Buddhists!

I'll go that one farther.  Assuming the world's monotheistic religions have
enough in common to be covered by the same gismu, I think that gives them
enough in common with polytheisms to be covered under that umbrella, too.
'cevni' means G/god(s), however you spell it.  If you want to be specific
about which god or what kind or how many there are, you can use tanru and
enumeration (le pa cevni if Lojban's blurring of singular and plural
offends your religious sensibilities, le xebro cevni or le cevni pe lai
.jy'udim. or whatever.  Similarly for other cultures and numbers).  If you
want jegvo to mean god, how come it wasn't chosen by the magic
six-languages-into-one method like the other gismu?  And what is cevni for?
This way, Eric can be satisfied with le cevni to refer to all the gods in
his religion, and I can use it for the one in mine.  When it comes right
down to it, where does JHVH get off capitalizing on an English word (God)
and ruining it for everyone else?  (This from an Orthodox Jew!  What's the
world coming to? :-) )  

>Cultural neutrality demands that we not read our culture's prejudices into
>such an important gismu.  `Jegvo' must be read `the Judeo/Christian/Islamic
>/Zoroastrian creator-God' (oh, you want to know about the Zoroastrians? ask
>me by private email sometime...).  Personally, I'd rather the evil old bastard
>didn't get a gismu at all, but, hey, that's just *my* prejudices
showing...

Again, I'll agree, but not for your reasons (of course).  jegvo certainly
does not deserve a gismu.  Look at English, or just about any other
language which uses some term for God in the Judeo/Christian sense.  How is
it used?  As a name!  It makes much more sense to talk about la .iauex. or
la .adonais. or even la .xacem. (Hebrew for "the name," used in everyday
conversations where speaking a name of God would be inappropriate) than to
mumble something about le jegvo.  Would you say that la .alex. cu jegvo but
la vicnus. cu cevni?  Why the distinction?  If you want to indicate
identity between Allah and JHVH, you might say la .alEX. du la .iavex. or
whatever (we don't know how the tetragrammaton was pronounced).  (Also,
I think that's the best we can do for Allah, since we can't have 'la' in
the name).

And what about the Zoroastrians?  xu la .a'uras. mazdas. cu jegvo?  .i xu
la .axriman. go'i?  .i mi na djuno .i la .a'uruas. mazdas. ba'e cevni .i la
.axriman. ba'e go'i!  (If my understanding of Zoroastrian theology isn't
too far off the mark).

Of course, the same thing goes for xriso (la .iecus. or maybe la xrist.)

>-- 
>						   >>eric>>

~mark