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).)