> 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).)