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 "crami"
[parent] [root]
Comment #4: Re: so not humans in legends?
Curtis W Franks (Sat Jan 23 23:15:45 2016)

gleki wrote:
> Do Hercules, King Arthur count?
> Does Sherlock Holmes count?
> In fiction novellas does Napoleon count?
> Does he count in historical novellas?


Fictional but fairly realistic humans probably do not count.

Magical humans are arguable but probably do not either in our modern
conceptions. Harry Potter is not someone whom I would classify as a crima
nor even as a crima remna. In-world, even less so (despite his "legendary"
(different, more colloquial, sense) status). I would probably classify
house elves, vampires, and hags (as portrayed in the /Harry Potter/
universe, and elsewhere (using a specific sense of "hag")) as crima,
especially out-of-universe. In-universe, it is likely, but more arguable.
Same for Hobbits, dragons, dwarves, and elves in /The Lord of the Rings/
and unicorns, satyrs, etc. in /The Chronicles of Narnia/.
However, medieval people might consider witches and wizards to be crima
(remna).

Gods are typically not included in the category of those things of which
most people think when they hear "mythological creature". They are somewhat
more powerful and divine and somewhat more separate (in the mythology, they
typically inhabit a different world from humans and other mythological
creatures). However, their off-spring might be included, especially if they
are not demi-gods but rather are beasts (gorgons, titans, cyclopses,
giants, the Hydra, Kerberos, etc.). Demi-gods are arguable.
However, under a strict interpretation, though, gods are mythological and
animate, so they might count in this sense.

Comment #5: Re: so not humans in legends?
gleki (Sun Jan 24 07:23:40 2016)

krtisfranks wrote:
> gleki wrote:
> > Do Hercules, King Arthur count?
> > Does Sherlock Holmes count?
> > In fiction novellas does Napoleon count?
> > Does he count in historical novellas?
>
>
> Fictional but fairly realistic humans probably do not count.
>
> Magical humans are arguable but probably do not either in our modern
> conceptions. Harry Potter is not someone whom I would classify as a crima

> nor even as a crima remna. In-world, even less so (despite his
"legendary"
> (different, more colloquial, sense) status). I would probably classify
> house elves, vampires, and hags (as portrayed in the /Harry Potter/
> universe, and elsewhere (using a specific sense of "hag")) as crima,
> especially out-of-universe. In-universe, it is likely, but more arguable.

> Same for Hobbits, dragons, dwarves, and elves in /The Lord of the Rings/
> and unicorns, satyrs, etc. in /The Chronicles of Narnia/.
> However, medieval people might consider witches and wizards to be crima
> (remna).
>
> Gods are typically not included in the category of those things of which
> most people think when they hear "mythological creature". They are
somewhat
> more powerful and divine and somewhat more separate (in the mythology,
they
> typically inhabit a different world from humans and other mythological
> creatures). However, their off-spring might be included, especially if
they
> are not demi-gods but rather are beasts (gorgons, titans, cyclopses,
> giants, the Hydra, Kerberos, etc.). Demi-gods are arguable.
> However, under a strict interpretation, though, gods are mythological and

> animate, so they might count in this sense.


This sounds more like a new purely Lojbanic semantic range and makes
translations from existing cultures somewhat harder.

If there was a semantic hole then I wish it was explained which
words/idiomatic expressions in at least those 6 major languages are covered
by crami.

Comment #6: Re: so not humans in legends?
Curtis W Franks (Sun Jan 24 08:17:08 2016)

gleki wrote:
> krtisfranks wrote:
> > gleki wrote:
> > > Do Hercules, King Arthur count?
> > > Does Sherlock Holmes count?
> > > In fiction novellas does Napoleon count?
> > > Does he count in historical novellas?
> >
> >
> > Fictional but fairly realistic humans probably do not count.
> >
> > Magical humans are arguable but probably do not either in our modern
> > conceptions. Harry Potter is not someone whom I would classify as a
crima
>
> > nor even as a crima remna. In-world, even less so (despite his
> "legendary"
> > (different, more colloquial, sense) status). I would probably classify
> > house elves, vampires, and hags (as portrayed in the /Harry Potter/
> > universe, and elsewhere (using a specific sense of "hag")) as crima,
> > especially out-of-universe. In-universe, it is likely, but more
arguable.
>
> > Same for Hobbits, dragons, dwarves, and elves in /The Lord of the
Rings/
> > and unicorns, satyrs, etc. in /The Chronicles of Narnia/.
> > However, medieval people might consider witches and wizards to be crima

> > (remna).
> >
> > Gods are typically not included in the category of those things of
which
> > most people think when they hear "mythological creature". They are
> somewhat
> > more powerful and divine and somewhat more separate (in the mythology,
> they
> > typically inhabit a different world from humans and other mythological
> > creatures). However, their off-spring might be included, especially if
> they
> > are not demi-gods but rather are beasts (gorgons, titans, cyclopses,
> > giants, the Hydra, Kerberos, etc.). Demi-gods are arguable.
> > However, under a strict interpretation, though, gods are mythological
and
>
> > animate, so they might count in this sense.
>
>
> This sounds more like a new purely Lojbanic semantic range and makes
> translations from existing cultures somewhat harder.
>
> If there was a semantic hole then I wish it was explained which
> words/idiomatic expressions in at least those 6 major languages are
covered
> by crami.

Chinese: chu?nshuo shengw? (?)
Hindi: pauraanik praanee (?)
English: mythological creature
Spanish: criatura de la mitolog?a
Arabic: almakhluq al'usturi (?)
Russian: mificheskoye sushchestvo (?)

Comment #7: Re: so not humans in legends?
gleki (Sun Jan 24 15:17:01 2016)

krtisfranks wrote:
> gleki wrote:
> > krtisfranks wrote:
> > > gleki wrote:
> > > > Do Hercules, King Arthur count?
> > > > Does Sherlock Holmes count?
> > > > In fiction novellas does Napoleon count?
> > > > Does he count in historical novellas?
> > >
> > >
> > > Fictional but fairly realistic humans probably do not count.
> > >
> > > Magical humans are arguable but probably do not either in our modern
> > > conceptions. Harry Potter is not someone whom I would classify as a
> crima
> >
> > > nor even as a crima remna. In-world, even less so (despite his
> > "legendary"
> > > (different, more colloquial, sense) status). I would probably
classify
> > > house elves, vampires, and hags (as portrayed in the /Harry Potter/
> > > universe, and elsewhere (using a specific sense of "hag")) as crima,
> > > especially out-of-universe. In-universe, it is likely, but more
> arguable.
> >
> > > Same for Hobbits, dragons, dwarves, and elves in /The Lord of the
> Rings/
> > > and unicorns, satyrs, etc. in /The Chronicles of Narnia/.
> > > However, medieval people might consider witches and wizards to be
crima
>
> > > (remna).
> > >
> > > Gods are typically not included in the category of those things of
> which
> > > most people think when they hear "mythological creature". They are
> > somewhat
> > > more powerful and divine and somewhat more separate (in the
mythology,
> > they
> > > typically inhabit a different world from humans and other
mythological
> > > creatures). However, their off-spring might be included, especially
if
> > they
> > > are not demi-gods but rather are beasts (gorgons, titans, cyclopses,
> > > giants, the Hydra, Kerberos, etc.). Demi-gods are arguable.
> > > However, under a strict interpretation, though, gods are mythological

> and
> >
> > > animate, so they might count in this sense.
> >
> >
> > This sounds more like a new purely Lojbanic semantic range and makes
> > translations from existing cultures somewhat harder.
> >
> > If there was a semantic hole then I wish it was explained which
> > words/idiomatic expressions in at least those 6 major languages are
> covered
> > by crami.
>
> Chinese: chu?nshuo shengw? (?)
> Hindi: pauraanik praanee (?)
> English: mythological creature
> Spanish: criatura de la mitolog?a
> Arabic: almakhluq al'usturi (?)
> Russian: mificheskoye sushchestvo (?)

Well, I mean not the gloss. I mean the range of examples of crami is
uncertain in which case the question is what is even the purpose of having
a separate word. How is it going to be used? For translations of existing
texts or for generalizing patterns of myths in Lojbanology? In both cases
examples of such usage are needed.

Comment #8: Re: so not humans in legends?
Curtis W Franks (Mon Jan 25 07:57:13 2016)

gleki wrote:
> krtisfranks wrote:
> > gleki wrote:
> > > krtisfranks wrote:
> > > > gleki wrote:
> > > > > Do Hercules, King Arthur count?
> > > > > Does Sherlock Holmes count?
> > > > > In fiction novellas does Napoleon count?
> > > > > Does he count in historical novellas?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fictional but fairly realistic humans probably do not count.
> > > >
> > > > Magical humans are arguable but probably do not either in our
modern
> > > > conceptions. Harry Potter is not someone whom I would classify as a

> > crima
> > >
> > > > nor even as a crima remna. In-world, even less so (despite his
> > > "legendary"
> > > > (different, more colloquial, sense) status). I would probably
> classify
> > > > house elves, vampires, and hags (as portrayed in the /Harry Potter/

> > > > universe, and elsewhere (using a specific sense of "hag")) as
crima,
> > > > especially out-of-universe. In-universe, it is likely, but more
> > arguable.
> > >
> > > > Same for Hobbits, dragons, dwarves, and elves in /The Lord of the
> > Rings/
> > > > and unicorns, satyrs, etc. in /The Chronicles of Narnia/.
> > > > However, medieval people might consider witches and wizards to be
> crima
> >
> > > > (remna).
> > > >
> > > > Gods are typically not included in the category of those things of
> > which
> > > > most people think when they hear "mythological creature". They are
> > > somewhat
> > > > more powerful and divine and somewhat more separate (in the
> mythology,
> > > they
> > > > typically inhabit a different world from humans and other
> mythological
> > > > creatures). However, their off-spring might be included, especially

> if
> > > they
> > > > are not demi-gods but rather are beasts (gorgons, titans,
cyclopses,
> > > > giants, the Hydra, Kerberos, etc.). Demi-gods are arguable.
> > > > However, under a strict interpretation, though, gods are
mythological
>
> > and
> > >
> > > > animate, so they might count in this sense.
> > >
> > >
> > > This sounds more like a new purely Lojbanic semantic range and makes
> > > translations from existing cultures somewhat harder.
> > >
> > > If there was a semantic hole then I wish it was explained which
> > > words/idiomatic expressions in at least those 6 major languages are
> > covered
> > > by crami.
> >
> > Chinese: chu?nshuo shengw? (?)
> > Hindi: pauraanik praanee (?)
> > English: mythological creature
> > Spanish: criatura de la mitolog?a
> > Arabic: almakhluq al'usturi (?)
> > Russian: mificheskoye sushchestvo (?)
>
> Well, I mean not the gloss. I mean the range of examples of crami is
> uncertain in which case the question is what is even the purpose of
having
> a separate word. How is it going to be used? For translations of existing

> texts or for generalizing patterns of myths in Lojbanology? In both cases

> examples of such usage are needed.

The range is fuzzy, but that is the case for the semantics of every brivla,
and probably cmene as well. The point of this word is really this: If you
would call it a crida, then you may also call it a crami, although the
former is more specific. This is completely general and universal. However,
there are some mythological creatures which are not humanoid. It makes no
sense, based on the definition given, to call them crida; moreover,
although zi'evla are freely defined independent of any of their apparent
morphemes (id est: the classifier rafsi does not actually influence the
semantics, it merely hints at them, but the hint may be utterly wrong or
unhelpful), there is no good motivation to use the classifier rafsi of
crida in the formulation of words for such creatures. Thus, this word
fills the gap. crida is not sufficiently general and there is no good way
to generalize using lujvo (since there are so many cases and, besides, it
is arguable that mythological creatures, even crida, are actually animals
or organisms at all). This word bypasses the issues but satisfies the need.
(In particular, it makes no claim on their being existent or alive, or
animals, or even organisms. If they did exist, they would be organisms or
maybe the spirits thereof, but they actually are just fantasies. This is
the claim that this word makes).

Comment #9: Re: so not humans in legends?
Curtis W Franks (Mon Jan 25 08:18:52 2016)

> Well, I mean not the gloss. I mean the range of examples of crami is
> uncertain in which case the question is what is even the purpose of
having
> a separate word. How is it going to be used? For translations of existing

> texts or for generalizing patterns of myths in Lojbanology? In both cases

> examples of such usage are needed.

From the standpoint of justification of existence of the word, this word
introduces no new issues to the interpretation of the language. It actually
reduces some. There are all sorts of questions on where to draw the line
for crida. This word envelops that one; it has analogous fuzziness, but
where their relative complement shares border with crida, one can always
choose this word in order to be less controversial.

For example: There are all sorts of mythological creatures (such as
centaurs, minotaurs, satyrs, sphinxes, manticores, merpeople, etc.) which
are only partially humanoid and which, therefore, are only partially
deserving of the title of crida. In order to be less contentious, one can
give them this title instead.

I would not name Napoleon a crami. But my semantics are not law, even for
this word, one of my own creation. (I will say, though, that it is directly
modelled on crida, so my creative powers were under self-imposed
restrictions which dilutes my authority even further.)
If you name Napoleon a mythological humanoid (crida) then I will strongly
debate against that designation. However, under the condition of accepting
it, one must also accept that he is, in the same judgment, a crami. You are
free to name him so if you choose. I just would not agree.
Likewise, you may name Zeus a crida. This is less contentious to me. But I
might initially rebuff the idea. I would probably, though, weigh the issue,
shrug my shoulders, and eventually play along. I probably would not
describe him so unless I was being purposefully pedantic, inclusive,
blasphemous, or the like, but it is a fairly acceptable appellation to me.
I can understand why someone would say that.

So, as always, semantics is not absolute. Semantics is in the mind of the
attendant parties, as always.

Comment #10: Re: so not humans in legends?
gleki (Mon Jan 25 09:14:57 2016)

krtisfranks wrote:
> > ...

you are mentioning crida all the way. So is it just proliferating
features of existing that is "wide range" gismu without justifying their
existence?

crida is bound to "mythical humanoids". So is crami basically "x1 noi
na remna cu participe x2 noi se ranmi"?

Comment #11: Re: so not humans in legends?
Curtis W Franks (Mon Jan 25 22:55:07 2016)

gleki wrote:
> krtisfranks wrote:
> > > ...
>
> you are mentioning crida all the way. So is it just proliferating
> features of existing that is "wide range" gismu without justifying their
> existence?
>
> crida is bound to "mythical humanoids". So is crami basically "x1 noi

> na remna cu participe x2 noi se ranmi"?

crami is bound to "mythical beings".
So, sure, a good understanding of crami is "x1 poi ke'a tolza'i ku'o
participe x2 noi ke'a re'au'e ja te ranmi". But I would caution that x2
need not be a specific story in the conceptualization of the speaker (hence
the option of "te ranmi"), that participation must be active in the sense
of x1 being involved with the story and being animate but it does not imply
being so active as to be interacting with the main characters or the plot
directly and in-world physically. And it is not tied to a story, but rather
an overarching culture conception of what fantasy beings can be included in
stories and which characteristics they possess. It is a collective cultural
and awareness (essentially, a mythos) that includes crami. In theory, the
whole species or class should be fantastic, not just individual examples
thereof. (So, Harry might be one since all wizards are fantastic, but
Napol?on would not be, since (in fact, he and) all other Muggle humans are
not fantastic (in a certain sense: not "all" as in "all conceivable" and
not "Muggle" in the sense that relies on the existence of wizards).)

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?