"New York"

[Ivan A Derzhanski <cbmvax!uunet!COGSCI.ED.AC.UK!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!iad>]

>  Date:        Thu, 13 Feb 1992 14:51:28 EST
>  From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@EDU.COLUMBIA.CTR>
>
>  Bruce writes:
>
>  >              I would say that if it is common to translate the name in
>  >some languages, you should translate it into Lojban <...>
>
>  Yeah, but who decides?  Saying "if it's usually translated" is a wonderful
>  way to ask for trouble.

Very good point.  Suppose three of the Source Languages (tm) translate
it and three don't.  Or none of them does, but Bengali and Japanese do.
What then?

>  Yeah, "New" is translated for Spanish-speakers,
>  but Hebrew-speakers (and if I understand Ivan correctly,
>  Bulgarian-speakers) talk about /niu iork/.

Yes, we call it {niu.iork.}, not {ni,u.iork} as Bruce said.

>  Some speak of "Co^te d'Ivoire",
>  others of "The Ivory Coast".

And keep in mind that there is no language that a Lojbani is required
to know.  So suppose someone doesn't know French, and

(a) he is (say) a Bulgarian speaker, and in his language the country
is called `coast of elephant bone'.  He may not be likely to recognise
{la kot. diVUAR.} at first sight, but he'll have lost nothing if he
learns that this is the original name of the place.  He'd have to deal
with the same name if he were learning Russian.

(b) he is (say) a Russian speaker, and in his language the country is
called {kot. diVUAR.}, which doesn't mean a light to him, but at least
he knows that this is the name.  If he comes across some mysterious
reference to elephants and their teeth in a Lojban text, he'll be lost.
Maybe he'll end up learning about the literal meaning of the name
which he has known only as a name.

I think I'd prefer to go for (a).

Ivan