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).