jbovlaste
a lojban dictionary editing system
User:
Pass:

Home
Get A Printable Dictionary
Search Best Words
Recent Changes
How You Can Help
valsi - All
valsi - Preferred Only
natlang - All
natlang - Preferred Only
Languages
XML Export
user Listing
Report Bugs
Utilities
Status
Help
Admin Request
Create Account
Discussion of "kapli"
[parent] [root]
Comment #6: Re: It's only my sentiment
Curtis W Franks (Thu Dec 25 10:58:46 2014)

gusnikantu wrote:
> gleki wrote:
> > krtisfranks wrote:
> > > gusnikantu wrote:
> > > > I feel alienation seeing that only American major tribes have
their
> > own
> > > > gismu. There are too many tribes in the world to let them occupy
the
> > > > limited gismu space. Please think of creating lujvo instead, or
> > > > cmevla/fu'ivla may be enough for them.
> > >
> > > What "American major tribes"?
> >
> >
> > probably rindo, a Loglandic legacy.
>
>
> Do you need connotation or denotation of "American major tribes"?
>
> The connotation is tribes that are not minor in the USA.
>
> The denotation includes a tribe that committed massacre of native
> Americans and slave trade of Africans; it includes tribes that are
victims
> of them; it excludes a tribe in the islands of the Far East that
committed
> massacre of Asian people; it excludes tribes that are victims of them;
it
> excludes tribes that are committing massacre in the Middle East; it
> excludes tribes that are victims of them; it excludes many other tribes.

Are you referring to White people as an American major tribe? If so, I can
accept this definition; if not, then I still have no idea about what you
are talking or how it relates to this word in particular.

In the former case, I defend the creation of this word on two fronts (for
now). The first is that the socio-cultural hierarchic designations and
system established by Europeans and promulgated by them via colonialism,
which then was inherited and further developed in its own particular
manner by people in the U.S. (along with the rest of the Americas, Africa,
several Asian areas including India and parts of China (I believe), the
Oceanic islands, and more), is a major Weltanschauung that has affected
the histoury of the world and many peoples. Central to this system and
perspective is the designation of the White person. If you do not believe
that White people (either people who call themselves White and are treated
by their own society as such or people who are called White from outside
of their own society) and the ideal and status of the White Person is not
important with respect to world events of the last several centuries, then
I am not sure how to convince you; the matter is immediately evident to
anyone who wishes to read a histoury book, at the least. The second is
that I am in no way limiting anyone to a U.S.-centric
(non-culturally-neutral) perspective nor reorienting the language in that
direction. Again, the concept of Whiteness is remarkably international and
established throughout the entirety of the most recent past
half-millennium. Moreover, I am in fact widening the semantic range of
discussible concepts and things. Perhaps one does want to talk about White
culture; before this word, how were they to do so in Lojban? Additionally,
tutle expands the range of racial discussion beyond an Ameuro-centric
focus; I in fact advocate for the treatment of words such as xispo,
lusto, and rindo as races, and I can see other words being helpful
(perhaps "Asian", "Aboriginal Australian", "Congoan",
"Scandinavian"/"Norse", etc. deserve 'race' words)- lujvo, tanru
constructs, or indeed new gismu can and should be created for such
expression. I happened to perhaps focus on American categories because
those are what are important to me, the divisions with which I am most
familiar, things that I know are recognized in my culture, and therefore,
the concepts that I am most comfortable with treating (not least of all
because I know that they are worthy of treatment (and should not be
ignored) and because I am more aware of how they might cause offense); I
do not want to handle racial divisions in the Middle East, Africa, or Asia
for example because I do not even know what they are, what is important,
how to do so without causing great offense, etc. But someone else can and
should. I do reiterate here though: Whiteness is important to these
regions too, so I addressed it on some level.

But, fine, maybe we need a brivla for it- but why a gismu? Well, I think
that this particular designation is fundamental and important enough (to
many people and peoples) to deserve a gismu. It is frequent enough to
need and warrant a concise and brief way to talk about it. It is basic as
a concept in many cultures (not just U.S. ones); it is a vantage point
that is viewed by and from many people and peoples; it has the possibility
for being used in more complex linguistic constructs, such as tanru and
lujvo, so it should support this functionality while making it optimally
easy. Other words that I think of as races or which can be used almost
immediately in linguistic constructs that refer to racial matters
(aforementioned) are gismu; it would not only be difficult to have this
concept be associated with a brivla that is not a gismu, it would in fact
be wholly weird and out of place for it to so. I also increased this
appeal by establishing a parallelness with the word for Black, which is
often taken to be a dual to the concept of White (indeed, especially in
U.S. culture); furthermore, I generated functionality with the
introduction of tutle; these words are all gismu. This word has a nice
etymology and aesthetic. The gismu space is finite, but still somewhat
large; we should make /some/ use of it in sufficiently deserving ways, and
I believe that this is a good example thereof.

If you do not like this word, you can either ignore it or introduce a
synonymous non-gismu brivla that is satisfactory to you in order to
alleviate your concerns.

Comment #7: Re: It's only my sentiment
guskant (Mon Dec 29 18:15:56 2014)

krtisfranks wrote:
>
> Are you referring to White people as an American major tribe? If so, I
can
> accept this definition; if not, then I still have no idea about what you
> are talking or how it relates to this word in particular.
>

The latter. Read my previous message carefully. My sentiment is not only
about kapli but also about all gismu for race/tribe/cultural names. I
asked you not to waste the limited gismu space for millions of tribes.
Your defense is therefore useless, but I still have some comments on the
contents of your defense.


> In the former case, I defend the creation of this word on two fronts
(for
> now). The first is that the socio-cultural hierarchic designations and
> system established by Europeans and promulgated by them via colonialism,
> which then was inherited and further developed in its own particular
> manner by people in the U.S. (along with the rest of the Americas,
Africa,
> several Asian areas including India and parts of China (I believe), the
> Oceanic islands, and more), is a major Weltanschauung that has affected
> the histoury of the world and many peoples. Central to this system and
> perspective is the designation of the White person. If you do not
believe
> that White people (either people who call themselves White and are
treated
> by their own society as such or people who are called White from outside
> of their own society) and the ideal and status of the White Person is
not
> important with respect to world events of the last several centuries,
then
> I am not sure how to convince you; the matter is immediately evident to
> anyone who wishes to read a histoury book, at the least.


White and Black are based on neither biological races nor cultural tribes,
but a classification of remna by darkness of pilka. "White" is not
even a broader term of Caucasoid: some Caucasian people are sometimes not
regarded as White because of darker skin (see for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race ). The concept of "Black" also
intersects plural races by scientific classification. Even if "White
people" is internationally important concept, we don't need gismu for
White people or Black people, just like we don't need gismu for
"curly-haired people" or "straight-haired people." If we need a word for
White people, we could create lujvo. If we need a word for Caucasoid, we
could create fu'ivla.

> The second is
> that I am in no way limiting anyone to a U.S.-centric
> (non-culturally-neutral) perspective nor reorienting the language in
that
> direction. Again, the concept of Whiteness is remarkably international
and
> established throughout the entirety of the most recent past
> half-millennium. Moreover, I am in fact widening the semantic range of
> discussible concepts and things. Perhaps one does want to talk about
White
> culture; before this word, how were they to do so in Lojban?
Additionally,
> tutle expands the range of racial discussion beyond an Ameuro-centric
> focus; I in fact advocate for the treatment of words such as xispo,
> lusto, and rindo as races, and I can see other words being helpful
> (perhaps "Asian", "Aboriginal Australian", "Congoan",
> "Scandinavian"/"Norse", etc. deserve 'race' words)- lujvo, tanru
> constructs, or indeed new gismu can and should be created for such
> expression. I happened to perhaps focus on American categories because
> those are what are important to me, the divisions with which I am most
> familiar, things that I know are recognized in my culture, and
therefore,
> the concepts that I am most comfortable with treating (not least of all
> because I know that they are worthy of treatment (and should not be
> ignored) and because I am more aware of how they might cause offense); I
> do not want to handle racial divisions in the Middle East, Africa, or
Asia
> for example because I do not even know what they are, what is important,
> how to do so without causing great offense, etc. But someone else can
and
> should. I do reiterate here though: Whiteness is important to these
> regions too, so I addressed it on some level.
>

I don't talk about the importance of the concept of "White people."
Besides, White or Black is not names for race/tribe/culture as discussed
above. As I wrote previously, I would downvote all gismu for races, tribes
or culture, as well as gismu for categorization of
skin-colors/hair-curliness etc. Please create lujvo or fu'ivla if those
words are important for you.


> But, fine, maybe we need a brivla for it- but why a gismu? Well, I think
> that this particular designation is fundamental and important enough (to
> many people and peoples) to deserve a gismu. It is frequent enough to
> need and warrant a concise and brief way to talk about it. It is basic
as
> a concept in many cultures (not just U.S. ones); it is a vantage point
> that is viewed by and from many people and peoples; it has the
possibility
> for being used in more complex linguistic constructs, such as tanru and
> lujvo, so it should support this functionality while making it optimally
> easy. Other words that I think of as races or which can be used almost
> immediately in linguistic constructs that refer to racial matters
> (aforementioned) are gismu; it would not only be difficult to have this
> concept be associated with a brivla that is not a gismu, it would in
fact
> be wholly weird and out of place for it to so. I also increased this
> appeal by establishing a parallelness with the word for Black, which is
> often taken to be a dual to the concept of White (indeed, especially in
> U.S. culture); furthermore, I generated functionality with the
> introduction of tutle; these words are all gismu. This word has a nice
> etymology and aesthetic. The gismu space is finite, but still somewhat
> large; we should make /some/ use of it in sufficiently deserving ways,
and
> I believe that this is a good example thereof.
>

Importance is not enough reason for creating gismu. Each name for
race/tribe/culture is important for people who concern it, but there are
many names for them, while we have only a limited space for gismu.
Besides, again, White and Black is not names for race/tribe/culture as
discussed above.


> If you do not like this word, you can either ignore it or introduce a
> synonymous non-gismu brivla that is satisfactory to you in order to
> alleviate your concerns.


I actually don't need a word for White or Black people, because I prefer
tanru for them if necessary, reflecting their vagueness of categorization.
I cannot ignore wasting of gismu space for categorization of
skin-colors/hair-curliness etc. or races/tribes/cultures, because I want
the space to be used for more valuable concepts. I will therefore continue
downvoting gismu for those.

Comment #8: Re: It's only my sentiment
gleki (Mon Dec 29 18:45:20 2014)

gusnikantu wrote:
> I will therefore continue
> downvoting gismu for those.

have u downvoted xispo?

Comment #9: Re: It's only my sentiment
guskant (Mon Dec 29 19:04:51 2014)

gleki wrote:
> gusnikantu wrote:
> > I will therefore continue
> > downvoting gismu for those.
>
> have u downvoted xispo?


Yes, I did it, though I did not touch most of official gismu because one
downvote is too powerless against 100000 upvotes.

Comment #10: Re: It's only my sentiment
Curtis W Franks (Tue Apr 11 20:34:18 2017)

gusnikantu wrote:
> Importance is not enough reason for creating gismu. Each name for
> race/tribe/culture is important for people who concern it, but there are
> many names for them, while we have only a limited space for gismu.
> Besides, again, White and Black is not names for race/tribe/culture as
> discussed above.

No, it is not enough. Importance gets a concept a word. Function would then
get it a brivla. But I provided other reasons as well; in particular,
utility and fundamentality should motivate the selection of a gismu in
favor of this word.

I would also add that this concept is important to those who are not White
as well. This idea is one of the fundamental driving forces in the vast
majority of human history for the last five centuries, at least. This is of
global inportance. It is not an other categorization by a minor tribe; it
is a cornerstone of modern society for some of the most powerful and
largest nations on the planet and played a profound role in every inhabited
continent on Earth.

I would not call it a tribal distinction or its own society; I would
describe it more as a prominent feature of consideration within a society,
which carries with it immense social, cultural, financial, and other
implications. Ethnicity is something of a culture which lives in and around
other culture.

Moreover, this word has - built into its structure - the ability to
reference the surrounding culture/society system. This further widens its
scope of utility. Whiteness does not mean exactly the same thing in New
York City as it does in Birmingham, Alabama - let alone in some part of
Bolivia. There is plenty of overlap and historical connection, which is
important too (and why I think that this cna be unified into a single
concept), but the differences are accounted for by way of the terbri.

> > If you do not like this word, you can either ignore it or introduce a
> > synonymous non-gismu brivla that is satisfactory to you in order to
> > alleviate your concerns.
>
>
> I actually don't need a word for White or Black people, because I prefer
> tanru for them if necessary, reflecting their vagueness of
categorization.

What sort of tanru would you use? Some might be good. But I am not sure
that you can capture all of the details in a reasonable and brief manner. I
think that the important implication - that this is part of one's identity
and is inherent to them based on their present and past cultural/societal
setting, and that it is a means of asserting all sorts of societal
privileges and protections, as well as a means of grouping certain people
in a way which has cultural inplications individually and more widely for
generations to come - is likely lost in those tanru and therefore would be
difficult to regain via lujvo. zi'evla seems like the only reasonable
option to me.

> I cannot ignore wasting of gismu space for categorization of
> skin-colors/hair-curliness etc. or races/tribes/cultures, because I want
> the space to be used for more valuable concepts. I will therefore
continue
> downvoting gismu for those.

It is not about skin color really, though. It is about ethnicity - a
cultural identity and the resulting treatment in a society. Aesthetics are
just a basis for assessing this trait/identity feature. If redheads
underwent similar treatment (as they might have), then I would be willing
to adopt a word for them too. But if they did not, then they can be
described simply via mention of hair color.

It is not possible to be culturally neutral whilst considering culture and
other abstract human constructs. But they must be linguistically supported
somehow. Perhaps all such cultural words should be made into zi'evla. I am
not sure that that really helps, but it could be done. However, since that
is not the case, then it seems perfectly reasonable - nay, necessary - to
introduce a word for this concept and to have it be a gismu. We should
accept its provisional introduction for now, and then we can discuss
tranaferring all such gismu to zi'evla space. Anything less would be
asymmetric and unjustifiable. There is no reason for "merko", "ketco",
"glico", or any of the others to exist as gismu while this word does not.
They all deserve words and they all deserve to be in the same category of
word. (Aside: Moreover, I would actually argue that a decent number of
these words, including this one, should be gismu).

___

Removing the word from the language does not make any of the problems
inherent to racism better, by the way. It is important to be able to talk
about these things; a name is control. (The intersection of these claims
with the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis could be interesting).

We have a lexical gap in Lojban and that gap is a significant obstacle to
translation efforts and mere discussion.

Comment #11: Re: It's only my sentiment
gleki (Wed Apr 12 04:12:03 2017)

i ro djica tu'a lo #uilkinse cu fliba

Comment #12: Re: It's only my sentiment
gleki (Wed Apr 12 06:05:30 2017)

Seriously

1. Some courts approved apes of having a subset of human rights. Which
means they are almost-nation and thus they must be moved out of gicmu space
according of this proposed cultural neutrality policy. Other animals look
somewhat salient to me too. Therefore, I propose moving cats and dogs into
fu'ivla space.
2. How can this word be bad? Someone can google this word and be annoyed
even if such word is downvoted. Being pc imo is the only justification of
not creating such words. But such people can be annoyed even if they find
such words in fu'ivla/lujvo space. So just a warning in "jargon" field like
"non-universal Western culture" might be enough.
3. can't see whether being a gicmu or non-gicmu makes any difference. how
many people have complained of besto by far?

Currently, jbovlaste will accept data for 69 languages.
You are not logged in.

  recent changes jbovlaste main
This is jbovlaste, the lojban dictionary system.
The main code was last changed on Wed 07 Oct 2020 05:54:55 PM PDT.
All content is public domain. By submitting content, you agree to place it in the public domain to the fullest extent allowed by local law.
jbovlaste is an official project of the logical language group, and is now headed by Robin Lee Powell.
E-mail him if you have any questions.
care to log in?